Cool News
Wahoo Rob gives his take on THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST!
Hey folks, Harry here... I love this movie. I've decided to hold off writing a review till I see the final version, simply because we have so many of these other "rough cut" reviews that have come in. I'd rather write a review that talks about the differences between the cut I saw at BNAT5 and the release version. I'm curious what, if any, cuts are made to the film, what the final score does to it and ultimately the visual effects that Mel intends for the film. Here's Wahoo Rob with a look at the film, as of a week ago...
Harry,
I'm a long-time visitor to your site and have a great appreciation for the movie info I find here. I've been a movie fan since my youth, catching double-features like those old Steve Reeves Hercules movies and Sir Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes for 25 cents (yep, that oughta date me). Doesn't matter if it's comic book or indie art, I love it. Usually I keep my opinions to myself when it comes to the web...but I've simply got to weigh in on The Passion.
I was lucky enough to see a rough cut at a Young Life (Christian ministry to teens) staff conference last Sunday in Orlando, Florida. Jim Caviezel showed up for the screening and spoke afterwards about the demanding physical aspects of the role. The whole experience was remarkable.
Now granted, my Christian beliefs definitely color my response to this movie...but I've seen pretty much every "Jesus" movie ever made and this one's different. Gibson's offering resonates in a way that I can't explain. It's been 7 days since I've seen the movie and I can't get it out of my mind.
I had some concerns when I heard Caviezel was playing Jesus, that he was too "pretty" to play an man Isaiah called "a man of sorrows" and who had "no beauty or to attract us to him." Those concerns were easily resolved. His performance is powerful and rich.
Maia Morganstern is transcendant as Jesus' mother, Mary. She somehow manages to balance the despair of watching her son tortured and killed with an other-wordly awareness that he is fulfilling his purpose and mission on earth. The exchange between Mary and Jesus on the Via de la Rosa after he stumbles beneath the weight of the Cross is at the same time heart-rending and uplifting.
The rest of the cast is excellent. From a conflicted Pilate and a debauched Herod to the gender-ambiguous Satan, Gibson has drawn exactly what he needed from each member of the cast.
Is it anti-Semitic? I'm not Jewish, so obviously I can't speak from that point of view...but I wonder how a movie whose hero is Jewish (along with his mother and friends). Caiphas and the other Jewish leaders who sought the death of Jesus seem more politically and theologically calculating than thirsty for blood. And there are plenty of other positive Jewish portrayals throughout the film, from the dissenting priests at Jesus' trial to Simon who, when pulled from the crowd to help carry the cross, goes from worried that he might be identified to closely with Jesus to a man who sees that there's something different about this suffering "criminal."
This movie is hard to watch. The cut we saw was so very close to NC-17. It was brutal. But it was necessary. One of your early reviewers said something like "we have to see this." He/she is right. It's critical that we know, really know. The audience, made up of Young Life staffers from around the world, didn't just cry...they sobbed.
If there was ever a movie that should be deemed "must see", this has to be it.
Keep up the great web site!
If you use this, just call me...
WahooRob
-
+ Expand All
-
Punch my vagina! I'm first!
-
Good review
-
Passion is going to eat ass.
-
And you know you like it.
-
And that's that Jesus was totally GAY.
-
please, please be civil. thats all i ask when commenting about this movie. you people are always so very evil, and all i ask is you try to be a little less punkish than normal. make fun of teh movie, but lets not start shit here, alright?
the movie sounds wonderful. -
Punch it!
-
just ugh. well done man, well done.
-
This movie won't make back its negative costs. Simple as that. Outside of a few rabid Christians, I can't imagine anyone who will want to see this. Sounds like strictly arthouse fare.
-
http://www.freewebs.com/year03/
Hi,
Writting to you from Singapore (S.E. Asia). For those who don't know Singapore is a small island nation known around the world for its strict laws. Alot of people in the States I've spoken to always refer to Singapore as "the country where you get caned for doing bad things". Partly true, partly not.
Anyways, before I digress anyfurther, let me get to my point. We're a multiracial country and the government is always trying to keep the bond shared by the various ethnic groups tightly knit and sometimes they go as far as policing censorship of films & publications just to ensure it.
I'm terribly afraid that due to this reason we may not get to view "The Passion of Christ". Thus far I have not seen the trailer screened before any movie nor are there any posters/artwork on display in cinema lobbies.
I really hope we get to catch this one because it definitely is on the top 5 list of Most Anticipated movies of the year!!!!
http://www.freewebs.com/year03/ -
To my knowledge,I'm neither but I'm looking forward to seeing this. Still not into the name change though. If this is as good as the hype,all the controversy will blow over in time like it did with The Last Temptation of Christ & all people will remember is what a great flick it (hopefully) is.
-
Someone said that they don't think it will do well, outside of a few "rabid christians". is that like a few "radical dirty hippies"? Or maybe a few rabid nigga's"? I mean really. It is just stupid in this day and age to start going the route of those kind of weak characterizations. We do live in a country where 90% of the country, according the last years Associated Press poll, call themselves christians. Now lets just see... It is opening in more theaters than Big Fish, people like Harry and his crew, not exactly "rabid christians', like, no, LOVED it, and 90% of this country profesess(sp?) to believe in the story this movie tells as the foundation of their lives... Yeah, I think it might have a chance. Now close minded "rabid anti-christians" like the above poster might not go see it, but I am willing to bet that this movie might not do all that bad. I mean it will probably do better than Catwoman... But thats just the Guiness talking...
-
Quote: "This movie won't make back its negative costs. Simple as that. Outside of a few rabid Christians, I can't imagine anyone who will want to see this. Sounds like strictly arthouse fare."
Did you ever see that episode of South Park... Fait+1... I think Passion is going to own the box office. -
TomVee not the person directly above me... So am I a "rabid christian"? I guess so. I do believe in the Bible and Christ. That must make me "rabid".
-
You rock. Anyone who meantions that is going to heaven. It is in the Mormon Bible.
-
But it sure makes you GAY.
-
Ya, isn't Chewbacca, like, the thing that gave that the golden plates or something? But his name was, like, Moron, or something.
"Joseph Smith he was a prophet, dum-DUM-dum-DUM-dum." *snic* -
Now, Ladies and Gentlemen... Chewbacca is a wookie from a distant planet. He has nothing to do with Mel Gibson's, The Passion of Christ! This makes no sense! No sense at all! If it makes no sense then you must acquit!
-
I read thru the guiness & knew who you meant. That South Park Faith+1 ep mentioned was freaking hilarious. Blasphemous as it was,that song about being "on my knees" had me close to tears.
-
Why do we "have to know" a religious myth? I don't "have to know" shit cuz there's nothing to know. It's a MADE UP STORY you fucking morons. Pull your fucking heads out of your asses and face reality. There ain't no magic fairy in the sky watching over you....oh and to the reviewer....Isaiah didn't say shit about Jesus, numbnuts. NOTHING in the OT is reference to Jesus. I can't see the appeal of this movie except for self-deluded nimrods who want to beat off to Jesus....especially a naked Jesus getting whipped by dudes in togas. TPOTC=gay bondage porn.
-
Totally GAY.
-
It is so easy to have one's point proven on these message boards. I love it. I don't even need to point out the complete lack of intelligence in your post, the obvious raw hatred of Christ and the Bible, your lack of Biblical knowledge, your lack of historical understanding, etc, etc. All you people can do is get angry, call things "gay", curse and swear and yell. It is sad really.
-
No one is forcing you to "know this religous myth". Unless someone is behind you with a gun that is. Last I heard you don't have to go see any movie! Crazy idea huh Mr. Pink! Wow. Chew on that. Now as to people who do THINK, not force, you ought to see this movie, or understand the story of Christ think about this. If you believed you had something in your life that was the most incredible, wonderful, perfect, loving thing in the universe would you not want to share it with people? I don't like it when people try to witness to me but I do understand why they do it. If I had found something that gave me peace, love and joy in my life I would want you to have it to. I am not trying to tell you you HAVE to be a christian or believe in Christ, only try to understand why someone might want you to know... It is out of love.
-
Thank you for your nice review, WahooRob. I've loved reading everything about "The Passion of the Christ" here, and for real, how can this film be anything less than what it seems EVERYONE is saying it is? I dare not jinx it, but my gosh, it's been praised by such a diverse group of people, and each seems to take something away from it that is deeply personal and moving, and everytime I read a review such as this, my thoughts immediately fly to how I'll get to watch it soon myself and how remarkable Mel Gibson is for pushing forward, relentlessly, even after all the controversy started to stir. He has such a brave heart, *g*. Nah, I know you all are rolling your eyes now, *lol*. But seriously, he is hella strong and I'm so happy for him. Go Mel!!
-
If it's critical that we "really know," then why not put the spikes through the wrists instead of the palms? I will be seeing this, and I might find it to be a great piece of art; religion (and Christianity in particular) has inspired all sorts of great art. However, I doubt it to be more of an objective, fact-based portrayal of events that may or may not have taken place two thousand years ago than what I would find by simply reading the gospels.
-
First of all, I guarantee you I know more about your Bible than you do, and more about history. Pray tell, what "historical fact" did I get wrong? What did I get wrong about the Bible? I'm sorry to break it to you but there are NO prophesies of Jesus in the OT. Isaiah didn't say shit about him. There are some general Messianic prophesies which Jesus did not fulfill and there are is a lot of out of context, horshit, non-prphetic fragments which are seized upon by Christians in a lame attempt to make vague associations with Jesus. There are also a few instance of gospel writers inventing facts to suit a preconceived notion of Jesus as the Messiah (such as the birth in Bethlehem...that's a myth not a fact)but there isn't a fucking word in the OT that is truly predictive of Jesus. If I don't "have to know," then why do all these reviewers keep telling me that I DO have to know. If I don't have to know then shut the fuck up and take your ghost story somewhere else.
I don't give two shits about someone else's ecstatic mental illness. I don't want to hear about Jesus. I don't want to hear about pyramid power. I don't want to hear about Allah, I don't want to hear about Krishna. It's all equally bullshit. You prayboys really want to convince smart people that your fairirs exist? Here's how you do it...you fucking PROVE IT, you assholes. Show me one motherfucking shred of evidence or get the fuck out of my face. -
U obviously have deep psychological issues and I sincerly hope that you find the help that you need.
-
Jan 18, 2004 11:42:13 PM CST
Another attempt by white racists to defame Jesus -a strong, prou
by bill maher
Before there was Rodney King, Before there was Emmit Till,there was Jesus of Nazareth -a strong, proud black man who the victim of Roman police brutality. To this day, those motherfuckers say Jesus beat himself up and confessed to everything and they only had to nail him up because he was resisting arrest. I realize Mel Gibson -a strong proud Australian actor -wait a minute! what the fuck do Australians have to be proud of? Not stepping in sheepshit for a week? Anyway, I know Gibson had his hands full because of the anti-Semitism bullshit, so maybe he didn't want to press his luck with The Man so he cast a white guy (at least this one had a tan!), which is better than that little Italian runt (doing Rome's bidding, no doubt!), Scorsese did. Scorsese cast a blond goy as Jesus as a slap in the face to Blacks and Jews, shit that's probably what killed Sammy Davis Jr! I guess Rutger Hauer was busy.
-
You just had to get him started halcyon, didn't you? Pink's got some serious issues and lives for this kinda stuff, so don't encourage him unless you're ready for this talkback to turn into the Apocalypse.
-
How can they say the film is Anti-semetic when the fucken movie is based on the bible. So the whole fucken catholic religion is anti-semetic because we say you killed christ?
Well maybe you DID and maybe you DIDNT, but don't get on a fucken movie when its based on the story IN the bible, cuz then your getting on the bible itself and thats a WHOLE diffrent argument. -
When the fellowship started lecturing King Theoden, he would have said "Who are these fags who speak to me as though I needed their advice?", grabbed each one by the neck and thrown them out the castle windows to their deaths. www.wankithardcore.com
-
Jan 19, 2004 12:10:43 AM CST
Mr. Pink, are you married to Pink? I dig that song "IIIIIIII'm c
by bill maher
That song ROCKS! www.wankithardcore.com
-
Jan 19, 2004 12:16:56 AM CST
DONKNOTTS, you either type really fast, or you are a lonely pers
by lil ze
At all.
-
"God" is silly & makebelieve and Christianity is a despicable death cult responsible for the slaughter of millions, yet I will go see this flick with an open mind and hope to enjoy it. Faith has produced some beautiful things (the works of Bach spring to mind) as well as all of the abuses, crusades, inquisitions, tortures, murder of Gallileo, etc. that comprise 99.9999% of Christ's legacy. Now, would your average Christian go sit through ninety minutes of atheistic propaganda, just because it was a good movie? SHYEAH RIGHT!
-
Jan 19, 2004 12:36:11 AM CST
I love the juxtaposition of the "JESUS FILM REVIEW" with the "VA
by darth phallus
These modern times are killing me...
-
>>Now, would your average Christian go sit through ninety minutes of atheistic propaganda, just because it was a good movie? SHYEAH RIGHT!<< ===== um ... isn't that what most Christians who want a little bit of entertainment have to suffer on a daily basis? Christian-bashing is all the rage. It's easier to be Islamic or Bhuddist than a Christian these days. Why is anti-Christianity so PC?
-
In between curse words and arrogent assumptions, I think Mr. Pink addressed all the issues put forth with the obvious amount of angst. I wonder if he likes nu metal... I really could care less who know more about the bible, I think it is laughable that you feel the need to show your penis envy though Mr. Pink. The obvious thing here is that you are telling someone, not sure who you were addressing since no one asked you your opinion, why you are not and will not be a Christian. I am not sure where that came from but I really don't care if you need scientific evidence for any of it. Thats your deal man. Your rage though, it's funny that something you don't believe in really gets you all worked up...
-
I was trying however to spread a little liberal love about being tolerant of other people and there beliefs and why they might choose to share them. Even if we disagree with them. Part of the problem with the world is people getting angry over someone else's beliefs, 'cause, "how dare you try and tell me about something you love!" I know, I didn't use as many swearwords as Mr. Pink but... I really don't see how that improves ones arguments. One of the beauty's of "spreading" one's faith is the other persons ability to reject it. No one is forcing anyone. I guess I shouldn't even try to reason here though right? Oh well.
-
...and all the atheists on this board remind me why I can't stand other atheists. Jesus, you people like to go on don't you? Completely disrespecting the faith of millions upon millions of people and than wonder why no one will give your ideas the time of day. Buncha fucking numbskulls! You people (we people? Ah you get the idea) act as if you're the most tolerant open minded people on the planet and folks of faith are closed minded idiots but in fact the opposite is true. I know tons of Christians (kinda hard not to really) and, compared to my fellow atheists, are infinitely more open minded. And of course the only times my fellow atheists do seem to open their minds is to accept theories that Jesus was gay, or Jesus was a pedophile, or Jesus moved to France with Mary Magdelene, or Jesus just plain ole didn't exist. Do my fellows open their minds to the fact that more than likely Jesus JUST MIGHT have been one of the single most influential theological philosphers of all time? No. God forbid my fellows get a fucking clue. Now I am an atheist. I don't believe in God. I believe that Jesus did in fact exist...hell he did exist, it doesn't take any amount of faith to know that (for the proof, just look at the Christian Bible...no one in their right mind rights shit that influential and than credits it to a make believe character). Do I agree with everything he said? No. In fact, considering some of the things he said, I'm surprised Karl Marx called religion the opiate of the masses. Really, those two would have agreed on some occasions (but than again Karl Marx wasn't that bright to begin with). However, I can at least argue against Christianity (or Islam, or Judaism, or whatever other religion) based on philosophical points and not using the childish reasoning of a buncha people who were probably disappointed as choir boys when their priests didn't take them in the back and...well, take them in the back;). Ah well, whatever. Personally I'm looking forward to this movie. Unlike my fellow atheists, I'm actually very interested in understanding religion and how the faithful perceive it.
-
Just like the main Character in "The Hebrew Hammer." Now that's some Hebetude! Actually I'm Armenian but that's kinda like being Jewish, so I'll take the compliment. Yes, I have heard of Stalin, and Mao, and I'm glad you brought them up. Trying to be Christian and disclaim the horrors your hateful church has perpetrated on our species for 2004 or so years is like calling yourself a Stalinist or a Maoist and saying "but those guys got it wrong." Take some responsibility, c'mon. Oh wait, I forgot you Xians don't need to take responsibility. That's one of the big draws of your death cult. Everything bad is just the devil's fault, how convenient, and Jebus will absolve you for everything you do wrong. Must be nice. Go shoot an abortion doctor why doncha?
-
Yeah too bad he wasn't smart like you. My goodness, and you talk about arrogance? Anyway poor old Jesus Christ the person (if he actually existed) is okay in my book. As Copernicus (not the scientist, the obscure ranty performance musican) said, "Jesus was the last Christian!" I mean,if you can read the hateful spew known as the gospel according to Paul and think "Wow, what a cool set of attitudes to build a religion around" then you're... well, you're a typical Christian.
-
Jan 19, 2004 1:25:24 AM CST
They need to make a Jesus movie starring Bush and his cabinet.
by zerocorpse
They can cast Al Franken as Judas, and Michael Moore as Pontus. You guys all know you'd cream your jeans if you saw Dubya as Christ. Why not? He already thinks he is, anyway! Har Har Har! And with that seed of disaccord sown, I shall run for the hills!
-
Mynameis Said: Do you actually believe athiests haven't committed atrocities? Have you ever heard of Stalin?-----------------------This is true. More people have suffered and died (and continue doing so) under communism, which is inherently atheistic. I'm not apologizing for any of the shit that religious fanatics have done (or continue to do like with militant Islam) but all that's a drop in the bucket compared to the shit done under communist rule. 160 Million dead in one hundred years since the rise of communism and socialism. Religious fanaticism of the last two thousand hasn't killed even close to that many.
-
Whats funny? How little this has to do with this movie... Maybe instead of trying to solve the world and histories problems in this talkback, which I am sure we can do with enough arguing, really, lets just wait, go see the film and then talk about whether it was good or not... How's that sound. Anyone in the Mpls/St. Paul area is welcome to go see it with me and then we can discuss it. Unless all you want to do is swear and rage and pretend you are an intelligent version of Fred Durst. Leave the pretentious, white-boy, penis-envying crap at home. Thank you.
-
Jan 19, 2004 1:36:57 AM CST
Atheists don't commit atrocities in the name of their lord, mess
by holly_wight
And when we make mistakes, we own up to them. Religious nuts blame everything on God or the Devil (or their religion's version of the good and evil archetypes) and can't simply say "Yeah. I fear and just plain don't like homosexuals, so that's why I try to club them to death outside of bars." Nope, for these freaks it's ALWAYS a holy quest, a divine influence, or a righteous crusade when they do their damage. An atheist who doesn't outright despise religion is a fence-sitter. Either you reject it and want it gone from the face of the earth so it can do no more harm, or you 'tolerate' it and allow people to die or suffer because Jesus/Allah/God/YHWH/Whoever says they should. There really isn't much of a middle of the road here. Either religion exists and damages the world, or it is rejected and eventually wiped out, to the benefit of all thinking human beings.
-
"Yeah too bad he wasn't smart like you. My goodness, and you talk about arrogance?"-------------------Both hated money, both thought people should subordinate their lives to others and frowned on any form of self-interest (in fact so do most religions). Like I said, if Karl Marx was that smart he wouldn't have brushed off religion as the opiate of the masses.------------
-
"An atheist who doesn't outright despise religion is a fence-sitter."---------------Thank you for explaining to me where I stand on religion. Really, I was curious and was wondering when someone was going to tell me. You've helped me a great deal. I think now I can go out and face the world with my new found stance.
-
Yes, mynameisnobody, I support Stalin. Way to get to the heart of the argument. But I guess if you had any critical thinking or reading analysis skills you wouldn't be a Christian, would you? My argument: Stalinism=bad Christianity=bad. Stalinists=complicit Christians=complicit. Clear enough? And the difference between a religion and a cult is that people in cults call their cult a religion. Also, religions are tax exempt. Go burn some evolutionary biology textbooks why doncha?
-
Suggesting intelligent people tolerate Christians or give any kind of a bye to the atrocities of Christianity (or Islam or whatever) is like the cultural relativists calling for "tolerance" of female circumcision or the enforcement of the Hijab (Islamic veil).
-
Stalin's warped version of Communism didn't kill people in the name of atheism. There is no "manual" for atheism. It isn't a philosophy or a creed. It is the lack of a belief. Stalin's kills were a horrible slaughter but it was done for political reasons. It had nothing to do with a hatred of non-atheists. It had to do with slaying any possible opposition to the regime. The church had always been, especially in Europe up until that time, a source of power and rule. Belief was viewed as one of many potential sources of rebellionto topple Stalin's regime. Stalin killed plenty of people for plenty of reasons, but it wasnt in the name of atheism. There is no such creed. There is no rule in an atheist manual saying to slay the believers. Similarly, Hitler used Christianity as a justification / enticement to believers to agree to much of what he was doing, but at no time would I attribute his kills to Christianity. It was just his excuse. That said, religions do have laws, justifications, vilifications, creeds, rules, and the like. Therefore it *is* possible to kill someone in the name of a religion or because of a failure to conform. Such is not true with atheism. Anyone who kills in the name of atheism is adding something else into the mix. Atheism isnt a creed, it is simply the absense of belief. So, counting Stalin's kills as being in the name of atheism is a red herring and entirely false. He was a horrific jerk though, no doubt.
-
Alright, in the spirit of the other guy who offered this I'll happily go see this film with any Christian talkbackers in the Buffalo NY area, and we can go to the bar afterwards and have an enormous dead-end argument that comes down to Kierkegaard's "leap of faith." I do have Christian acquaintances; there's a Jesuit priest in my Ulysses reading group whose company and conversation I actively enjoy (although we've never discussed religion), and a Christian (one of those "Jesus Christ Superstar" types who profess a "personal relationship" and disdain the organized church) looked after my cat in December while I was traveling. Alas, none of that has any bearing on the reality that religion is stupid and dangerous and God is patently makebelieve. I mean, have you read the bible? It's fucking ridiculous!
-
"Truly you are the king of kings...broooothherrrrr!!!"
-
Do those people know how to drink or what? And no, I'm not being sarcastic.
-
mynameisnobody: atheism is simply the lack of a belief in the divine. That's it. Otherwise, atheist tend to agree with the same rules most everyone else does. Morals dont come from g(G)ods. Morals simply come from the fact that we are social creatures and some behavior (dont kill; dont steal) is simply practical for socities to function. I'd guess that more than likely, social rules of behavior came about BEFORE religion. Religion strengthens social rules about mutually beneficial behavior, but for the society to exist in the first place, the basic understanding of "moral" (or social) behavior was almost certainly in place. Anyway, I dont see why people assume atheists have no answer to questions like these. Atheists follow the same general principles others do. As you get more specific on the rule, you start getting more into cultural differences, until you finally get to rules or tenets that are strictly archaic or cultural, rather than being helpful towards mutual harmony.
-
Glad you're interested in morality, nobody. Thing is, religion != morality. There are ethical systems based on the greater good of humanity that eschew the crutch of supernatural belief, and that optimistically suppose people can act in an ethical manner without fear of a big magical Eye In The Sky motivating them. May I direct you towards http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/declaration.html ? Morality and religious belief are separate entities; the sort of dog-eat-dog "Darwinist" (as if) world you describe is not atheism and has nothing to do with atheism. It's more along the lines of what hardcore "objectivist" libertarian Ayn-Rand freaks (like "eveel_capitalist"?) espouse.
-
I could very well work at Mickey D's, and it wouldn't make you any smarter nor me any more ignorant. I happen to roof houses for a living, and I'm comfortable with my blue-collar career. I'm also secure in my intellect, and your goofy jabs about the GED are almost as big a waste of your time as those fervent prayers you aim at your ceiling every night. Classism is just one more ugly bigotry, and it suits a member of your hatemongering religion very well indeed. Remember to tithe to your televangelists!
-
First of all, to stay on topic, I intend to see this movie. Whether Jesus existed or was divine or not isn't important to me. What will be interesting will be to see how well Mel does in the movie. Also, Jesus, if he existed as his religion dictated, was just one of many people crucified. It will be horrific but fascinating to get some glimpse into that, not unlike the beginning of Saving Private Ryan. Now to address some points. Mr Nobody, you keep telling us to re-read your arguments slowly. The implication is that we are idiots. *shrug* Repeat it as often as you like. In the meantime I will address your specific comments. I dont expect you to agree. I'm just giving my answer. You say: "How can you establish what is right or wrong without a belief in the divine Since...what is right or wrong is set forth out of the fear of retribution and/or judgement from a higher power?" I say: A higher power does not have to be divine. A higher power can be your society or fellow man. If we oppose the greater structure, we will generally be crushed by it. Dead is dead, or torture is torture, and fear is fear, and conformity is conformity, regardless of the motivation. Also, are you saying that right and wrong are based on somebody tougher than you saying you are wrong? This makes a god no different than a thug with a gun. Fear of retribution as a valid motivator isn't any greater or any less just because the source is divine. You say: "To be truly atheist...would mean one would have to completely embrace Darwinism." I say: that is a false argument. Dawrinism is simply thinking that Darwin was essentially correct about the origin of species and some other things about natural selection and evolution. One can be a theist (believer) and agree with him. One can be an atheist and disagree with him. Your comment has no merit. You say: "Joe Rock...didn't arbitrarily make it up. It's that simple. And, to deny that would be imbecilic" I say: passing off early humans as Joe Rock is a little too simplistic. There are other social animals other than man and they often follow similar social patterns, some quite complex. Joe Rock didnt make up ethics arbitrarily; rather all of the Joe Rocks that disrupted the safety and group structure of the other Joe Rocks around them got theirs. In fact, we STILL do that today, every day. Social relations grow and develop. Some morals change from group to group or generation to generation. Some morals are nearly universal because they are tied into the learned social behavior that got us to where we are now. If early man had eaten all the babies of all other men he found, man wouldn't have flourished. At some point, communities worked out simple rules that allowed individuals and groups to prosper. FINALLY: It is bad form claiming that someone is an imbecile if they don't follow your reasoning. I could claim some flaw that you would have if you disagree with me. I respect those that disagree with me and I'd rather know WHY they think what they think, rather than degrading them for holding a different opinion. Anyway, most of my friends and family are religious, mostly Christian. I dig them, they dig me. Can't we all just get along? :) Because this could go on forever and rare is the ideological conversion on a web forum, I'll let my comments stand or fall on their own and wish you and everyone the best. Now, lets bring on the film!
-
yes, first, then can't wait!
-
First off, he wasn't a black man. This seems like the new rage to call him black. He wasn't. Granted, he was darker-skinned then Willem Dafoe, but remember he was a Jew in Israel. Picture what one of them looks like. -Lino-
-
Second off, imagine if there were no religions. Organized religion has become a CULT. I grew up in a Catholic home, went to Catholic school and all that. While I do have a respect in the Bible and Jesus and all that, we all must realize that "god" and whatnot is someone we *all* know. Even for athiests, who just don't wanna take on the responsibility of believing... they believe in the same thing. God is universal. And He's not found in a church. Or a steam-filled window. Or a sweaty towel. Or a book. -Lino-
-
It will be the most important movie ever made for hundreds of millions of people.
I'm an atheist, but I will see it as soon as it comes out. -
Wether Jesus was the Messiah or not i irrelevant. What he said and did makes him a better man than pretty much any man in history. It is therefore unfortunate that most people that claim to follow his teachings do so solely because of some supposed magic tricks.
-
Who plays Satan?
Is it Viggo Mortenson again? -
I'm a rabid scientologist, like old Travolta. To me this film will not be as important as Battlefield Earth, though I agree that to many people all over the world it may be important indeed. Oh, and to everyone who has a problem with other people's religion or lack of it, grow up you dickheads, this is a film site.
-
Paul never said shit about homosexuals. The words that are typically translated as such are mistranslations from the Greek, namely malos and arsenokoites which mean "soft" and "boy-fucker" respectively. Malos meant "soft," but not effeminate as it is often translated. it meant morally soft and was often applied to womanizers and drunkards. "arsenokoites" was actually coined by Paul and it was a reference to banging little boys. People didn't even have a concept of homos and heteros as fixed orientations.
your stuff about OT prophesies is also wrong. Jesus fulfilled none of the expected Messianic prophesies which included stuff like restoring the temple in Jerusalem, bringing world peace, bring all the Jews back to Israel and making the whole world monotheist. Jesus wasn't even a descendant of David if Joseph wasn't his father. You also seem to be unaware that the OT Messiah isn't divine, isn't a redeemer of sins and that he can't die without fulfilling the prophesies. Jesus in no way fits the OT prophesies of the Messiah and it truly shows the ignorance of Christians that they don't know that. Ask a Rabbi what the Messiah is ACTUALLY supposed to do and you might be surprised.-------------------------------------HALCYONSEVEN....hey, guess what, dude, I happen to live in the Twin Cities metro area. Small world, huh? I won't be attending TPOTC, though. There's nothing in that movie I can't get from a 15 minute episode of DAVEY AND GOLIATH. I try to avoid cinematic glurge.---------------------------------------------OH, I almost forgot, for those wondering about the gay thing. there are a couple of passages which was edited out of the original Gospel of Mark (google on "Secret Gospel of Mark") which says that Lazarus was a youth who came to Jesus' room one night wearing only a thin layer of cloth and then spent the whole night with Jesus. It's quite a provocative passage. Jesus may well have been a friend of Dorothy....not that there's anything wrong with that. -
All I can say is that I just spent some time in the Philippines, an openly Christian country, where the people suffer yet have the most amazing generous spirit I have ever seen. Us "liberated" westerners have NOTHING to teach them. Case closed.
-
I find it humorous that so many brandish their atheism as evidence of how intellectually advanced they are, then follow up their spiritual 'insight' with juvenile homophobia. Please keep in mind that the vast majority of 'U So Gay' atheists in this talkback are adolescents burdened with a whole lot of hormonal angst. I'm an atheist, who is probably a great deal more versed on biblical and spiritual myth than most here. Not only do I intend to see the Passion of the Christ, but I do agree that it is a movie that simply must be seen. No single event, fiction or non-fiction, has had such an impact on our culture. The vast majority of North American adults are Christian (though it's 75%, not 90%). To have no interest in learning about something so integral to our way of life smacks of wanton ignorance - no less than the homophobic marks bookending posts of that type. Try not to drown on the sand you've buried your heads in.
-
I have a BA in Biblical Studies. I can read the NT in Greek. I know what it says. I know the historical context behind it. I know the individual agendas of the authors. Ther is nothing I can learn from this movie. I already know the story. I fail to see how watching an actor get some fake skin flayed off or get a fake beard torn off is a "powerful" statement. Jesus was one of thousands who were crucified. His suffering was no no more special than anyone else's. The Jews in the death camps suffered MORE than Jesus did, so why should I care about Jesus. Hell, the crucifixion of Matthew Sheppard on a barbed wire fence was more tragic than tyhe death of Jesus. The Passion narratives are mostly fictionalized (Jesus would not have been signifiant enough for an audience with Pilate or Herod and the trial before the Sanhedrin never happened)and the resurrection is OBVIOUSLY fiction, so there is simply nothing of any historical importance in this movie. Tyhe idea that Jesus died for anyone's sins is fucking laughable nonsense rooted in primative notions of animal sacrifice. The idea that Jesus was crucified VOLUNTARILY is also complete crap. The little fucker never had a choice in the matter. He wasn't GOD, after all, and getting himself killed wsa NOT something the Messiah was supposed to do. His followers simply invented a lot of cosmic significance for the event because it was embarrassing that their presumptive Messiah got smoked. Paul fused it with a lot of crap from Greco-Roman mystery cults and deified him, Constantine made Christianity the State religion of his empire and after that, Christians were simply more bloodthirsty and ruthless than any of the people around them so Christianity got spread by default, not because it has any more intrinsic authenticity or logical integrity than any other religion but because it happened to be the religion of the conquerors. Stupid people conitnue tro swallow it without any sort of questions or critical thought and here we are. We have pussies from Christian youth groups telling us we "have to know" all about their sick little fantasy. Fuck that shit, man, fuck that in the ass.
-
Jan 19, 2004 3:37:04 PM CST
The utter arrogance and bigotry in here make me want to puke..
by durendal
..From the likes of DaddyLongLeghead, Mister Pink, and other intolerant bigots. What the fuck is wrong with you? You act like the 2 billion or so Christians in the world are somehow responsible for the atrocities committed hundreds of years ago. The vast majority of Christians don't blame "THE DEVIL!" for that. It's called human failings. It's called sick people using religion as a drive for their own warped ambitions. Quit the stereotypical Christian-bashing bullshit and try having an original thought for once in your lives. Christ preached love, but you call his doctrine hateful and murderous? That Christianity is some kind of death-cult? Spoken like a true dick that has never set foot in a church. Read the New Testament sometime. I'm an agnostic, but I have a lot of repsect for Christianity and other religions. Sure, you've got Jerry Falwell and other fundie nuts, but you have that in damn near every religion. And how is your blatant Christian bashing and insulting better than some Bible thumper getting in your face and telling you you're going to hell? It's the SAME FUCKING THING, just different words. You'll rant about how Christians are so closed-minded, weak, stupid, and don't even consider their doctrine. You are guilty of EVERY ONE OF THESE, you fucking hypocrites.
-
Jan 19, 2004 3:58:47 PM CST
Greatone, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about
by mister pink
"Arsenokoites" means literally "boy-bedder" but in Greek idiom the suffix "bedder" was used derisively in compounds such as "animal-bedde" or "mother-bedder." "Arsenokoites" specifically does not appear anywhere in written Greek before Paul but cultural and historical context was such that pederasty and boy-prostitution were common practices and were commonly reviled by the Jews. There is nothing in the Bible which flatly condemns homosexuality (the quote from Deuteronomy refers to transvetite temple prostitutes). Not that it matters much. the Bible is filled with archaic and ludicrous moral admonitions. The Bible also says that people who work on the Sabbath should be killed. The NT says that women should not be allowed to speak in church or have any authority over men. The Bible is a compilation of backwards books from backwards times. It's fucking stupid to try to base a meaningful ethos on it now. I'm sorry you hate gay people but trying to support your bigotry with the Bible is truly pathetc. The Secret Gospel of mark is not a "crackpot" document. Google on it, dude. It's fairly well accepted that it was redacted from the original version of mark. It's not even particularly bad. There are only two fragments, one is the Lazarus passage that I mentioned and the other is a completely benign passage about Jesus entering and leaving a town. The Lazarus passage is not explicit or damning, it is merely suggestive. I presented it merely as circumstancial evidence that Jesus my have been gay. That's only a problem if you think that there's something wrong with being gay. The Gospels say nothing of Jesus' sexuality or marital status one way or the other, so why is it so implausible that he was gay? I don't know if he was or wasn't and I don't really care but it's not a ridiculous hypothesis on its face. Nothing in the Gospels rules it out.
-
It's the Painful Path, not the rose parade.
-
Having read as much of this message board as a person with things to do could manage, I think there are a couple of things that need to be said.
Jesus Himself knew that people would use His teachings for their own political and personal expediency. He said 'not every-ne who calls me lord will enter the kingdom of heaven'. Religious people have damaged the world, but people of faith have done great things for it, eg Mother Theresa, Martin Luthor King, Desmond Tutu etc.
We all know how much Islam has been distorted by political extremists. The same thing has happened to Christianity. Perhaps Mel Gibson film will help those who are truly interested get back to the roots of it (although, not having seen it yet, I can't properly comment). If you're not interested, nobody is forcing you to see this film.
Having been through a serious connective tissue disorder myself and made a literally miraculous recovery in the face of absolutely no medical hope, I would ask those of you who are arguing AGAINST faith to offer an alternative. What hope could you have given me? If you don't understand faith, let those who do get on with it.
I was raised by an atheist, I respect many atheists and I even love quite a few of them, but there are some times in life when I thank God I didn't listen to them. -
Hey there. Just wanted to let you know you're not alone in the "fence-sitter" club, and I'm glad to know there's a few people out there with large enough minds to understand more than one, even completely contradictory viewpoints. Atheists like the most vocal ones here are the reason I've disavowed the label and simply go by agnostic. (It's more accurate by my standards too, even though I could be considered atheist with a lowercase "a" just the same. It all depends on where you place your emphasis). I was raised Catholic, and while I get little shivers down my spine at the mere utterance of some of the Catholic precedings nowadays (no, I haven't had any 'encounters' with priests), I still think this movie will be interesting to watch. I'm kind of a fan of the secular image of Jesus. You know, the rabid hippie meets typical political rabblerouser. Strip away all the miracles and fish stories and you've still got a guy worth admiring. So I'm glad to see all the RABID Christians coming out of the woodworks, but my fellow nonbelievers (eveelcap notwithstanding) please, shut up.
-
Hey there. Just wanted to let you know you're not alone in the "fence-sitter" club, and I'm glad to know there's a few people out there with large enough minds to understand more than one, even completely contradictory viewpoints. Atheists like the most vocal ones here are the reason I've disavowed the label and simply go by agnostic. (It's more accurate by my standards too, even though I could be considered atheist with a lowercase "a" just the same. It all depends on where you place your emphasis). I was raised Catholic, and while I get little shivers down my spine at the mere utterance of some of the Catholic precedings nowadays (no, I haven't had any 'encounters' with priests), I still think this movie will be interesting to watch. I'm kind of a fan of the secular image of Jesus. You know, the rabid hippie meets typical political rabblerouser. Strip away all the miracles and fish stories and you've still got a guy worth admiring. So I'm glad to see all the RABID Christians coming out of the woodworks, but my fellow nonbelievers (eveelcap notwithstanding) please, shut up.
-
Hey there. Just wanted to let you know you're not alone in the "fence-sitter" club, and I'm glad to know there's a few people out there with large enough minds to understand more than one, even completely contradictory viewpoints. Atheists like the most vocal ones here are the reason I've disavowed the label and simply go by agnostic. (It's more accurate by my standards too, even though I could be considered atheist with a lowercase "a" just the same. It all depends on where you place your emphasis). I was raised Catholic, and while I get little shivers down my spine at the mere utterance of some of the Catholic precedings nowadays (no, I haven't had any 'encounters' with priests), I still think this movie will be interesting to watch. I'm kind of a fan of the secular image of Jesus. You know, the rabid hippie meets typical political rabblerouser. Strip away all the miracles and fish stories and you've still got a guy worth admiring. So I'm glad to see all the RABID Christians coming out of the woodworks, but my fellow nonbelievers (eveelcap notwithstanding) please, shut up.
-
Jan 19, 2004 6:43:26 PM CST
Wow! Another atheist I can agree with! And a capitalist, at th
by vikingkitty
As with most talks about religion, we see childish imps who think they are rebelling by labelling themselves "atheists" and trashing the beliefs of others. You're not. You're just showing what a true ass you really are. Thank god that, for every ten of you morons that give atheism such a bad name, there are at least one EveelCapitalist.
-
Jan 19, 2004 6:49:36 PM CST
It sounds like GreatOne has too much class to tell Mister Pink t
by vikingkitty
But I don't. Another childish atheist who gets his jollies from belittling the faith of "the masses" that he, apparently, is so much more enlightened than. Well, congrats to you, kid. Stick that degree up your ass.
-
Jan 19, 2004 7:05:24 PM CST
Who gives a shit about god, Jesus, atheism, catholicism and all
by bill maher
I worship great tits. I leave all the mistletoe, crucifixes, golden calves, crescent moons and other nonsense to you weirdos. www.wankithardcore.com
-
I hate to get into this but:
"Either you reject it and want it gone from the face of the earth so it can do no more harm, or you 'tolerate' it and allow people to die or suffer because Jesus/Allah/God/YHWH/Whoever says they should. There really isn't much of a middle of the road here. "
Gone from the face of the earth? Gosh, that sure sounds like a crusade to me you sanctimonious shit head.
No room for middle ground huh? Sounds like a Jihad to me.
Don't you "atheists" who are oh so much wiser and smarter and better informed than the rest of us, the unwashed masses, see the religion and dogma inherent in your ill-thought out ramblings?
-
Jan 19, 2004 7:16:23 PM CST
Greatone, you ask whether 2000 years of Catholic teachings could
by fontinau
You better believe they could be fucking wrong. These are the morons who used to be convinced that knowing herblore made you the devil's agent, that you could pay you're way into Heaven, and that the Sun revolved around the bloody Earth! Sorry, but while I know neither Mr. Pink nor Pope John Paul personally, I think I'm more inclined to listen to the former. Mr. Pink, for instance, has not contributed to the spread of HIV by opposing any non-abstinence education to help people avoid AIDS. Nor does he run one of the last organizations in the western world which refuses to promote women to the same rank as men. ******************************************** Looking at this from the opposite perspective: Okay, let's say that all of the Catholic church's practices for the last two millenia were right. How, then, do you handle the fact that the Catholic church sanctified homosexual unions well into the 18th century?
-
god these "arguments" are funny! believe in divine, morals, religions is morals, morals wouldnt exist without religion. bah what a load. its totally unrelated. "thou shalt not kill" and "shalt not steal" are pretty easy to comprehend with no concpetion of religion or gods at all. you see, from experience, you can see that killing and stealing tend to create disorder, or chaos. not killing and not stealing tends to create order and structure. life is better without chaos. duh. go back to grad school.
-
Nice to see I'm not the only one who thinks that Jesus and Marx had more than a little in common. I'm always amused when I watch rich asshole politicans on TV mumbling "God bless America," considering that according to their God it will be easier for them to "pass through the eye of a needle than to enter Heaven."
-
...easier for a CAMEL to pass through the eye of a needle than for them to enter heaven. Although I have trouble believing that a human is going to have a significantly easier time than a camel passing through the eye of a needle. ------- Anyway, this review is encouraging, but I still have my doubts about the movie. I know I'm in the minority here, but I have yet to be awed by either Mel Gibson's directing or Jim Caviezel's acting skills.
-
Fire worship is groovy.
-
I could've sworn it had some fuckin in it. I mean it's called: "The Passion of Christ" I want to see Mary Magdeline getting down on all fours and getting her holes filled by all twelve Apostles! I want to see Judas ass-ramming Romans! I want to see the Devil show up and demonstrate his mad sex skills whilst a totured and turned on Jesus masturbates furiously. None of that happens? Tell me at least, Jesus gets sucked off on the cross! Oh, fuck, antoher religious flick. Why do they make these. You'd figure that people would be bored enough on Sundays to avoid inflicting this kind of shit on moviegoers. Anyway, I hate Christians, all a bunch of fucking retards, shilling and paying to have their freedoms taken away from them by a bearded, sweaty, smelly hippie who only started a religion to get pussy and wound up getting nailed to fucking stick before he could pass out the kool-aid and staqrt again with even fresher pussy. But, you have to this about Christians, as piss fucking stupid as they are, they're not half as fucking ignorant as Mormons. I'm gonna start a religion, I'm gonna screw your daughters and then I'm gonna fake my death and get residuals for fucking centuries. You know, like Jesus.
-
If you must see it wait for it on dvd and get from the library. Gibson has an agenda with this film. He belongs to an ultraconservative cult within a cult. His statements regarding this film indicate that he is an anti-semite, and his father(whom he defends)is a holocaust denier.
The only thing I want to know is did Harry's nephew shit himself when he saw it. -
You realize that right now, one of your children is possibly getting cornholed by a priest? Your daughter is possibly getting deflowered by a Babtist who considers it his holy duty? You realize that you're paying to enslave entire cutures by sending 'missonaries' to bribe people into changing their beliefs with food? Fuck you all. Fuck your ministers and thier fucking half-million dollar homes, fuck you simple fucks who think that God has nothing better to do than watch out after your dumb asses. Fuck everyone who thinks that the Bible makes sense. Fuck everyone who says, "You have to interpret the text.", Fuck everyone who believes in creationism. Fuck everyone who's sitting around acting like their life is the pre-game show to Judgement Day. Fuck anyone who doesn't understand how wrong the message of the Bible really is. But, mostly fuck anyone who's stupid enough to believe in God, Allah, Jesus, etc and forever, fuck you. You're all a bunch of fucking sheep and because of you stupid fuckers, I have to listen to reviews of this fucking movie THAT'S NOT EVEN IN FUCKING ENGLISH FOR THE NEXT FIVE MONTHS! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! I WISH ASS RAPING PRIESTS ON YOUR CHILDREN!!!!!!
Yes, I am enlightened. I am all knowing. Therefore, I am not tolerant, I do not respect your fucking beliefs, I do not accept that it's 'your choice'. YOU ARE ALL FUCKING STUPID. GOD DOES NOT EXIST! WHERE'S THE PROOF!? Show me evidence, fuckers. Don't come out with that, "Well, how do you know you love someone? He's in your heart and I know he exists!" HIPPIE BULLSHIT! WHAT'S THE BIG FUCKING DEAL???? Why all the strife? Why all the arguing? Why all the bickering and fighting and crap? Oh, yeah, it's about religion, that wonderful fairy tale that everyone trots out whenever they want to start a fight to begin with. Fuck all you believers. You're the only thing that's wrong with this world. So, until someone makes a movie about Jesus that has hardcore fucking in it, consider me unmoved. -
I've been reading through all of the posts here, and must admit that I've enjoyed them greatly. I don't understand the need to belittle others based on their beliefs (and if you don't feel like you did, then I was'nt talking to you, lol), but I do enjoy hearing everyones perspectives on the subject of religion. Just because we don't see eye to eye doesn't make one smarter then the other, no matter how hard you try to convince everyone (including yourself) otherwise. That's not to say that you should'nt state your beliefs, why, and even debate (I enjoyed all of that!).
With that said, I still don't understand exactly why someone can't know right from wrong based off of common sense. I like to think that if everyone acted the way they would like to see others act, things would be alot better. That's not because Jesus told me so, or god will punish me otherwise (which is a sad reason to do anything. I'd much prefer to know someone did the right thing because they knew it was the right thing to do, not because they did it out of fear or to get something in return in the long run). After all, were'nt the basis of right and wrong around long before the bible?
No, I'm not an active Christian, but I do respect the religion and it's followers, and I do look forward to seeing the movie. I think wether you believe it happen or not, it will make for a great movie (I don't believe in the Lord of the Rings, but I've already seen it twice already, lol).
Is'nt agnostic not caring, where atheist is not believing? I care, but not too close minded to think that it's impossible that a god might exist, just don't believe so... what does that make me? lol
-
I HAVE VISITED YOUR SITE, OH SINCE THE PHANTOM MENACE. I FELT MOVED OF THE HOLY SPIRIT TO ENTER IN FOR A SEASON. AMEN.
THANKYOU FOR THE INSIGHT ON MOVIES. YOU AND ROBER EBERT ARE THE ONLY ONES I FOLLOW ON. THERE WERE THREE, BUT GENE SISKEL DIED SOMETIME BACK.
ON THE PASSION. THIS MOVIE WILL BE THE START OF THE FINAL REVIVAL FOR THOSE IN CHRIST JESUS ON EARTH AND FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO RECEIVE CHRIST AS SAVIOR. BOTTOMLINE, TIME IS SHORT. THE DEAL IS A TWO FOLD PACKAGE. NEVERTHELESS IN THE TWO FOLD COMES A WARNING. 1ST FOLD, GOT JESUS, GOT ETERNAL LIFE, 2ND FOLD, GOT THE DEVIL, GOT ETERNAL DEATH. BOOM. ANY QUESTIONS.
THE KING OF A NATION HAS SPOKEN ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE KING OF KINGS AND THE LORD OF LORDS. "THE RETURN OF THE KING" IS NEAR. GOOD MOVIE BY THE WAY.
-
I am something of an evangelical athiest who views anyone who adhears to any religion as foolish and incapable of rational thought. I HATE CHRISTIAN PROPAGANDA! Which is exactly what this movie is. But, that said, I'll probably see it anyway, cuz I enjoy good films. I just wish there was a director out there making Atheist propaganda films. The closest anyone has come is with Contact.
-
Jan 19, 2004 10:32:59 PM CST
mynameisnobody, morality is not contingent on religious belief..
by mister pink
First of all you have to know that evolution (only creationsists call it "Darwinism") works on populations not on individuals. The "competition" is between groups, it's not all against all. Morality is a cultural construct which functions as a method of preserving the survival of a whole population. Humans are a social animal and socila structure is integral to the survival of the species. "Moral" laws serve to place the syrvival of the group above the interests of the individual. It's a purely "Darwinistic" phenomenon. "God" has often been used as a boogeyman to scare the stupid into following proscribed morality but it has never been the SOURCE of moarality. It's just an imprematur, a contrived divine "endorsement" for whatever the leaders want to enforce. It should also be remembered that even religious moralit7y is stilled pulled directly from the asses of human beings. You don't think God actually wrote the Ten Commandments on stone slabs, do you. If you do believe that, I have some real estate in Florida you might be interested in.
-
Jan 19, 2004 10:56:14 PM CST
The catholic church is at least partly responsible for millions
by pablo2004
I was hoping not to get dragged into this but the comment about the church not having any responsibility in AIDS crisis got me. They have LIED to their sheep that condoms-besides being a ticket to hell-cannot protect you from the virus because it they have tiny holes that allow it to pass through. This simply flies in the face of every study done on HIV and they know it.
-
For many, Jesus isn't the inspiration or savior that he was to our parents and grandparents. The message is much more commercialized. Even the religions tout Jesus as an icon of the faith and not as the man who died to save the souls of everyone man and woman present and future. I think this movie will humanize Jesus for Christians and non Christians alike. Which is a good thing. -
You're showing one of the most annoying tendancies of the 'faithful' when engaging in an argument: You define anything that is unacceptable in modern society as the result of ancient church "hierarchy", and everything that is acceptable as church "doctrine". Thus you instantly eliminate even the POSSIBILITY of church doctrine being wrong, and ultimately make any attempt at debate pointless. *** Sorry, but indulgences were official church doctrine. The fact that they were motivated by corruption does not change that fact. Do you really believe that church doctrine today is entirely uninfluenced by corruption? *** As far as AIDS goes, I was referring to the spread of HIV in Africa, not San Francisco. The spread of HIV can be partly blamed on the fact that many Africans are not aware of how to avoid spreading the disease. Sorry, but you're never going to get people to stop having extramarital sex. Accept the facts: People are going to fuck, and if they are aware of the concept of safer sex, and have access to condoms, they are less likely to contract HIV. The Catholic church could save thousands of lives if it would abandon it's blasted "abstinence education only" doctrine - but apparently being sanctimonious is more important than saving lives. *** For the record, I have a healthy contempt for the work of John Boswell. But would you kindly stop using the word 'sodomite' to describe queers? It's kind of annoying to be lumped in the same category as beastialists. *** As for the church's teachings on homosexuality, allow me to make a prediction: The church once fiercely insisted that the universe was Terracentric. Now they admit that the universe is Heliocentric. The church once outright denied the possibiltity of evolution. Now plenty of priests believe in evolution, and there are extensive writings by Catholics trying to reconcile creationism and evolutionism. With homosexuality becoming more and more socially acceptable, I predict that the Catholic church will likewise eventually change its attitude toward gays to keep with the times. I give it 50 years at the most. *** And don't give me any spiel about how homosexuality will never be accepted by the chuch because of its "sinful" nature. In the first place, if the church condemned everything that's called a "sin" in the Bible, they'd have to turn their vitriol on anyone who ate clam chowder or tuned up his car on Sunday. Second, the Catholic church may claim to be concerned with morality - but like all organizations, their primary concern is their own survival.
-
God drowns humans like rats, turns them into pillars of salt, and considers asking them to sacrifice their first-born to be a legitimate way to test their faith. Meanwhile, the Morningstar is reponsible for most of the decent music of the last 50 years. And let's not forget that without him, we couldn't be having this discussion. It was the devil and Eve that gave humans knowledge.
-
I bet you throw some kick ass Xtian Taliban socials.
Yes condoms break 100% of the time and cause AIDS. No need to cite any study I'll just take your word for it because your a xtian and wouldn't lie to further some agenda.
But do me a favor and take a look at a globe. Got it? Good. Now notice that the US is a small portion of it. The AIDS epidemic in the rest of the world is mostly from heterosexual transmission. Yes they fornicate so I guess they deserve to die.
By the way, I bet you're really hot in the sack. -
Jan 19, 2004 11:54:48 PM CST
"The Passion" will bend you over and rip into your ass with its
by k0ny
Prepare geekboys, for a cinematic double-fisting of tremendous proportions. This film will be so fucking incredible it will make you give yourself a creampie and then jizz on the religious film-goer sitting immediately in front of you! Oh yeah! And just when you think it's all over, prepare for the second cumming!
-
By the way, before some nitpicking asshole points this out, I meant to write that the church admitts the solar system - not the universe- is Heliocentric. ***************************************************** Straying back on topic, here's a little food for thought. When "Dogma" came out, you had crowds of misguided Catholics picketing it (most of whom hadn't even seen the movie). Atheists may be engaging in a lot of unnecessary whining a lot about "The Passion of the Christ", but do you think any of them will waving signs outside the local cinplex come opening night?
-
You know, I initially didn't want to respond to your vitriolic, prepubescent ranting and give you the attention you so desperately want, but I felt the need to give you this advice: Don't drink the bong water. That is all.
-
dirty needles used in vaccinations. That's why so many kids have AIDS. The local medical folks understand the importance of vaccinations but haven't been taught that dirty needles can spread AIDS. They don't have enough clean needles either. +++ the reason why Christians think atheists are assholes is you usually only see the outspoken ones like Rob Sherman. There are probably more quiet unbelievers out there than you realise.
-
The truth is that with any group of people, Christian or Atheist or Buddhist or whatever, the vast majority of them are going to be assholes. I mean, can anyone think of a single ethnic/political/religious group that can be said to have a *good* image today?
-
Jan 20, 2004 2:18:00 AM CST
Passion of Mansur Al-Hallaj compared with Passion of Christ
by truthseekr1488
Curious parallels and contrasts...it is said Mansur laughed as he was being dismembered. Begin quote. Mansur al-Hallaj was born in the southern Iranian community of Tur in the province of Fars around 858. He was a Sufi and one of Islam's most controversial writers and teachers. Al-Hallaj was fascinated with the ascetic way of life at a very young age. He memorized the Qur'an during his teens, and began to retreat from the world to gather with other like minded individuals to study Islamic mysticism. He began to travel the world abroad, preaching, teaching and writing along the way about the way to an intimate relationship with God. By the time he went on his second pilgrimage to Mecca, several apprentices accompanied him, and after returning to his family for a short period of time, traveled to India and Turkistan to spread the Islamic teachings. After this, he made a third pilgrimage to Mecca, and returned to Baghdad. Sufi masters considered his sharing the beauty of mystical experience with the masses undisciplined at best, disobedient at worst. Al-Hallaj was considered an "intoxicated Sufi," who became so enraptured in ecstasy by the presence of the Divine that he was prone to a loss of personal identity, which blurs the lines between the Divine and the Man. During his arrest he experienced one of these breaks and uttered: "Ana al-haqq," or "I am the Truth" (or God). Those three little words would mark the beginning of the end for al-Hallaj. Still, his trial was lengthy and marked with uncertainty. He spent 11 years in confinement in Baghdad, and was finally brutally tortured (he was lashed, had his hands and feet cut off and his tongue removed) and crucified. There were many witnesses that stated that al-Hallaj was strangely serene while being tortured, and sincerely forgave his persecutors. He is referred to as "Love's Prophet." Today al-Hallaj is one of the most influential Sufi writers and an important character in Islamic history.
-
existed was the son of God, performed miracles and died and rose again...
Prove he wasn't/didn't/is. Not opinions, not theories, not beliefs, 100% undeniable PROOF.
Don't demand proof from someone else when you cannot prove your own beliefs.
God is real, Jesus is real, and he loves everyone. I say this in faith, without proof other than the Truth that is God's Word. I tell you this because I love you and strive to be like the Lord.
God give us all the choice to accept or reject him. You can accept or reject the truth, but it doesn't make it any less true.
I love you all, God bless
Coach Sams -
YOU are the one making the assertion. YOU have the burden to prove it. No one has to prove Jesus WASN'T God, just like they don't have to prove that invisible goblins aren't hovering over your head. How can you prove that your bullshit mythology is any more true than someone else's bullshit mythology? Can you prove that the angel Gabriel didn't talk to Muhammed? How? Christianity is just one myth out of thousands, NONE of which have the slightest empirical support.
-
It is on you dude.
There either is a God or is Not. That is the choice.
Some believe there is based on scripture, evidence of miracles, documentation showing where humans have spoken to a higher being etc.
and its billions that believe, not thousands. over 90% of the worlds people believe there is a higher power.
You say there is no god. Prove it. You are just taking the easy way out, you CAN"T prove there is no god. You made the statement, there is not god. I say there is. If a scientist has a hypothesis and says "This new drug I invented cures this disease" and another scientist comes along and says "no it doesn't" then the second scientist must PROVE that it doesn't. He can't just say it doesn't, he has to prove is point. So, you said show you some proof, I now return the favor, PROVE there is not a GOD. any god. prove there is not a higher power. not just my GOD, the true GOD, prove there is no higher power, some higher order in the Universe. -
In that scenario the burden of proof would, in fact, be on the first scientist. Only after the first scientist proves his or her hypothesis does the burden fall on the second.
Haha anyone remember when Homer pulled the crayon out of his brain and used a math formula to show Ned there wasn't a God? -
You beat me to it, BladeRunnerUnit.
-
...You can't prove that there is a God, and you can't prove that there isn't. That's why religion is based on FAITH. If God suddenly boomed out from the sky and told everyone to go to a particular church, what would be the point? Life and religion are about choice. You choose to believe in God or to not believe in God. You choose to go to church or not to go to church. The burden of PROOF isn't on anyone, because God can't be proven either way. It's all about FAITH. Sure Mr. Pink, you can spout off your hate and vitriol to someone who gives a gentle response. Shows what an asshole you are. But nobody has to prove anything. It's all belief.
-
No real comment on TPOTC until a final cut is released, but the sheer amount of anti-Christian and anti-Semetic hatred pouring off a few of you (one of whom, I believe, referred to us as "rabid") is spectacular. Saying that we're close-minded, then ranting on and on about how events confirmed by dozens of other ancient texts, archeological digs, and scientific tests have proven time and time again. Even if you don't believe in the religious or theocratical portions of the Bible, realize that most of the claims in regards to history are 100% accurate or undetermined--NONE have been proven false or incorrect through any modern scientific testing and/or analysis.
Oh, and to whomever was rambling on and on about nomentioning of Jesus in the OT, you're right. No name is ever given. However, dozens of proophecies were fulfilled which lead to the belief that Jesus of Nazereth was the son of God, and those ARE available in the Old testament. Full recordings of Jesus' lineage are also available in the New Testament. -
...but i feel i must. first, i've read the New Testament many times, and have yet to find in its pages the hateful speech spoken of earlier. perhaps you could give me some examples? i'd like to know. second, Jesus said that the greatest commandment was to Love the Lord your God, and secondly to love your neighbor. Christians have been rather lacking in that area down through the ages, but that doesn't negate the original premise. this leads me to my thrid point, which is that all those people chronicling the atrocities perpetrated by Christendom over the years, as well as those looking at practices and policies by Catholicism and the other organized religions that claim to be "Christian", well, they missed the point and purpose of Christ's life on earth. on the cross (and i can't wait to see this, it shall be most glorious in the truest sense of the word) Jesus said "Forgive them, Father, for they don't know what they're doing." We as Christians (and yes, i bare my breast and admit to it) are to forgive and love others, whether they agree, disagree, ignore or set us on fire as flaming torches for parties. if one who claims to be a follower of Christ fails in this regard, it does not change the premise of the teachings of Jesus.
by the way, i find it deliciously curious that although many discount Jesus as anything more than a moral teacher, they still admire him and i believe one poster even said he was the greatest example of a human being ever, or something.
also, just because John was the disciple Jesus loved, doesn't make either gay. i love my father and i'm not gay. "love" has come to be solely interpreted as sexual in nature, for obvious reasons, but the Love of God and His son Jesus trancends sexuality, affection, attraction, and any other earthly idea of love.
oh yeah, this is a movie post! almost forgot...can't wait to see this film. and i saw Dogma, thought it was funny at times (platypus, indeed!), kinda leary of Last Tempt. or JC Superstar. maybe i'll give 'em a whirl
thank you Harry for this forum to discuss what seems to still be a relevant issue in the world today, and thanks to all who have spoken their minds. that's what makes this country great -
Jan 20, 2004 5:52:20 PM CST
Hanging on the Cross, writhing in pain, Jesus suddenly reaches b
by eds1609
At which point he jumps down, and starts whomping ass on the Roman guards, ala Braveheart.
Later in the movie, as the poorly armed and dispirited Galillean army faces the overwhelmingly powerful Roman force across the field of battle, Jesus decides to give a rousing speech...
Jesus: "Sons of Isreal, I am Jesus Christ!"
Simon: "Can't be, Jesus is 10 feet tall!"
Jesus: "Aye, at heart! And if he were here, he would turn water into wine and blow matzoh balls from his ass!"
{Laughter}
And later in the movie, in a scene reminiscent of Lethal Weapon, Jesus is talking to the disciples at the last supper and he tells them that one will betray him...
"Eenie, meenie, minie... hey moe!"
He then begins doing the 3 stooges slap on Judas's face before he whips out his AK-47 and blows him away...
Oh and I heared they lined Danny Glover up for t he prequl, "The Passion of Christ: The Phantom Messiah"
-
You stated, "You say there is no god. Prove it. You are just taking the easy way out, you CAN'T prove there is no god." Do not take this as a personal attack, I have the utmost respect for someone to be entitled to their own beliefs, but I'm going to explain to you why it is that your argument basically proves nothing. Simply replace the word "god" with "leprechauns" and you will see why. You can't PROVE there (are) no leprechauns. No matter how hard you look, no matter how often, no matter what means you use to find them, you could ALWAYS be looking in the wrong place at the wrong time in the wrong way. So am I taking the "Easy way out" by saying I simply lack any belief in leprechauns? I think we all take it for granted that leprechauns apparently don't exist, right? If someone on this board believed in leprechauns, we'd probably all give him/her a nice pat on the head and slowly back away. The question isn't whether or not leprechauns exist, it's whether we KNOW that they exist, and quite simply, we don't. The same is true of God. The question is whether we can KNOW if he exists. I suggest we cannot. Granted, some epistemologies can conclusively tell you whether God does or does not exist based on strict criteria, but I tend to regard such views as inheritly simplistic - even naive. The concept of God has and always will be just slippery enough to avoid any conclusive negative, and therefore for EXACTLY the same reasons, has and quite possibly always will be slippery enough ever to give a conclusive positive. SO to argue that one cannot "prove" God does not exist is a rather meaningless statement, and misses the point entirely. He can't prove God doesn't exist, you can't prove he does. A problem for all is a problem for NONE.
-
While you are entirely correct on who carries the burden of proof, you have to accept the fact that it is a rather pat response. The best way to form an organized critical response is to learn by what criteria a person believes something, and then expose the internal flaws in that way of thinking. It forces both sides to think. :)
-
First of all, scientific method demands the it is incumbant on those proposing a hypothesis to prove it. Non-existence of supernatural entities is not a hypothesis, it is the default assumption. Just because you imagine some invisible fairy in the sky does not mean that your hypothesis automatically acquires any defult presumption of truth which must be overcome by skeptics. If you say your car can fly, I don't have to prove it CAN'T fly. If you say that Cthuhlu sleeps beneath the waves, i don't have to prve he doesn't. Asking others to rove a negative is a totally fallacious argument. Can anybody explain why one god is any more plausible than a thousand gods? I can keep on hypothesizing different hypothetical deities forever. Does that mean you now have a burden to disprove all of them. Please, get that weak shit out of my face.-------------------------As to teh alleged archaeological and documentary evidence for the events in the gospels....sorry, it doesn't exist. Apparently, you are under the impression that declaring something to be true makes it so. It doesn't work that way. As a matter of afct, there is virtually no archaeological evidence for any of the evenys in either the OT or the NT. Recent archaeological evidence shows that the Israelites were never enslaved in Egypt, there was never an "Exodus." There was no migration of Israelites into Plaesine from the desert. There was no conquest of Caana and there was no United Kingdom of david and Solomon. There are two passing references to Jesus in Josephus and Tacitus (but Josephus is heavily interpolated by Christian forgers). Both of those references just name Jesus as the founder of the christians who was executed. They say nothing of miracles or resurrections. They both got their info from Christians after the crucifixion so they can't really be said to be primary sources. The circumstancial evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus is fairly strong but there is NO evidence for miracles. Some of the stuff in the gospels can be categorically disproven by legitimate historical documents. Other parts of the gospels are contradictory or clearly mythologized. You can't win an argument based on empirical research so don't even try.
-
The beautiful thing about faith in God, and I mean that in the most sarcastic yet-also-honest sort of way possible, is that it DEFIES empiricism. God holds to no definition very easily. He/she/it is infinite, and yet a single entity, is seperate from, and yet a part of all things, the ruler of the universe from on high, and yet a part of all of us, is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, and yet seems callous to intervening in our suffering world. God is so flexible and poetic a concept that it belongs more to art than science. Since it is seemingly impossible to pin down "God", it is likewise impossible to prove or disprove him/her/it. As far as studies of the historic Jesus go, I have a hard time believing the evidence wouldn't also support well-constructed historical fiction as well. But I'm just a cynic. ;)
-
Here's my proof. Take it how you will, but so far it beats anything else I've read on here. If you believe that Jesus never existed, then this shouldn't sway you at all. But then again, I can't imagine that ANYONE would actually believe that Jesus never walked the earth. Whether you believe he's the Son of God or just an ordinary man, there's too much history to deny that he actually lived. Here goes: Of all the faiths of the world, Christianity is the only one whose "Chosen One" is not buried here on earth. You can't make a pilgrimage anywhere in the world to visit the tomb of Jesus. If Jesus had not been the Messiah, he would not have risen from the dead after he was crucified. Yet there is no body to be found. If he was an ordinary man, the Romans and all his enemies and detractors could have easily crushed his following with the proof of a body in his tomb days after his death. And the theory that his followers stole the body to hide the fact that he wasn't the Christ holds no water either. Why would they go to such lengths to hold true to something that was just proven untrue? Would anyone here risk life and limb for something you know isn't true? Would you risk persecution and death years after Jesus' death if you knew he wasn't the Messiah? Take a good look at how his disciples all died, especially Peter. Would anyone actually go through that knowing that it was all for naught? Knowing that you are suffering beyond belief for a pipe dream? They didn't take the body. So where is it?
-
Question: can all knowledge be evaluated by the standards of the scientific method? In others words, is it conceivable to you that perhaps some knowledge, human experience, whatever, lies outside that which science can or ever will tell us? Science cannot describe a feeling or a profound human truth, not like poetry does, or art, or religion. It can tell us what biochemical processes cause a feeling (or accompany it, if you're not a materialist), the effects, statistical probabilities that an agent experiencing a feeling will take a certain action, etc. But reading about love, for example, isn't the same as experiencing it. I don't take the scientific method as the end-all be-all of human experience. It is a fantastically useful tool within its domain, but some things still lie outside the sphere of scientific knowledge. Religion, or more accurately spirituality, belongs with poetry in that respect.
-
I lost my sock in the wash the other day. I know for a fact that I put it in there, and yet it wasn't in my basket when I cleaned out the drier. WHERE IS IT? Simple. My sock is Jesus.
-
People risk their lives all the time based on unproven beliefs. People join the armed services and risk their lives on the belief that they will win and that their victory will bring more peace than harm. If you want to get really serious, suicide bombers knowingly blow themselves to pieces on the unproven belief that they will find heaven afterward. I'm pretty sure you don't believe they will. I sure don't. Do you think their belief is proven? So why would they allow themselves to die? Because you're missing the point. Early Christians BELIEVED enough that they didn't have to know.
-
The Austin Ruse Life Foundation is an ultraconservative xtian foundation. Nope, no bias in their reporting. Why don't you try an unbiased source like the World Health Organization and then I'll take it seriously.
I lived and worked and had sex in Africa for almost 5 years. I guess I should be dead now. Senegal has one of the lowest HIV rates in Africa because of its condom campaigns and conservative xtian Uganda has nearly cut its infection rate in half since adopting a similiar policy. Unfortunately infection rates will still be high as infected women give birth to infected babies. God must really hate African babies to kill so many of them. Maybe he doesn't have a problem with abortion after all.
You know so little of the world. I'm going to take a wild stab here and guess that you are in your late teens and are an embittered virgin who can't stand the fact that other people are getting laid, so they must die. -
and that right before Jesus dies he looks at the Roman guards and says, "You just got served"
-
I would argut that anything which lies outside of the empirical....that is whatever cannot be discerned or inferred from sensory observation...has no relationship to the univesre anyway and is not worth thinking about. Anything which cannot interact with empirical reality (and if it could it would not be OUTSIDE of empirical reality) is indistinguishable from nothingness. It's purely a hypothetical construct which imparts no knowlege or value to any sentient observers WITHIN the empirical universe.
-
If you can't find a body that proves he was God? What a load of crap. If you really want to know, Jesus' body was probably left on the cross for the crows to eat. Crucifixion victims were virtually never taken down from the cross. The whole "Three days in the tomb" story was invented years later and actually lifted from Greco-Roman Mystery cults.
-
"I would argue that anything which lies outside of the empirical....that is whatever cannot be discerned or inferred from sensory observation...has no relationship to the univesre anyway and is not worth thinking about." Then what the hell are you doing on a MOVIE site where they describe the MOVIEGOING experience, which you must, of course, agree goes far above and beyond the sum of what is simply seen and heard and has very little to do with the universe at large? .......But seriously, I'd say an awful lot of mathematicians and logicians would be disconcerted at the idea that their entire fields of inquiry (on which your arguments depend, if I may add) are completely moot and unworthy of consideration. After all, you cannot empirically PROVE math, you can only relate it to the world (ie, 1's and 0's do not exist in and of themselves, they are symbols). And even if you disagree and take math to be an existant entity in nature and not simply a human tool, I defy you to empirically prove logic. :) Being an artist, a philosopher, and a fan of scientific literature (nonfiction and fiction), I tend to place a fair amount of value in pure human experience AS WELL AS empirical knowledge. I just try to keep them safely separate. =)
-
You points are so vague and untruthful that i can't wait to put down all your bs facts in one post, i have to put them down one post at a time. First off the one piece your of false evidence that stands out the most to me(I know out of your entire fallacious rant one actually stood out more than all the others) is your saying that the united kingdom of David and Goliath never existed. ERGH! Swing and a miss. The United Kingdom of David and Solomon was in existense from (c.1000-924B.C.), thats right B.C, none of that B.C.E. shit. Surprise David did exist and hmmmm so did Solomon. David succeded Ishbaal, Sauls son to the throne having been a tribal cheiftain who through power and cunning achieved the throne. Solomon one of Davids sons succeded him to the throne in 962 B.C. in which he ruthlessy slaughtered his potential rivals. The United Kingdom of David and Solomon strected from Sinai to Assyria and at the height of its short power was the mightiest kingdom in the region surpassing even Egypt in its greatness until the breakup of the kingdom after Solomons death. And in case your wondering where this information comes from its a University textbook called the Ancient Near East compiled by William. E. Dunstan. Surely even you in your most irratic moments can understand that this information is historically accurate and thus your arguments are......Hmmm how to put this,"A crock of shit spewed from the mouth of a brigand."
God that felt good!
More to come :^) -
First off, to Mr. Pink, i must applaud on you on your awesome closed mindedness. Man, the arogance of atheists baffles me, but never ceases to amuse me. These self same people who bang on about God being a "fairy tale", usually using science as a means to "prove" their beliefs, are so arrogant it is really quite offensive. When was the last time you checked if the earth was round? Oh, i see, you know it is cause someone told you, or cause you believe it to be true. Hmmmmmmm. And tell me, have you ever sawn your chest open to make sure that all that stuff about digestion and all isn't just, i dunno, a fairy story? No? Well then get off your fucking moral high horse. Christ in a Tutu, open your mind a little, get some air in there. At least stop being so fucking hypocritical. Its a definate case of "those self-righteous folks should be more like me". Anyhow, that has nothing to do with this film, which i am gasping to see. Ever since i saw an exhibition of Cadoret's religious paintings, in particular Ecce Homo and The Mocking Of Christ, my biggest film-making ambition has been to film the gospels ("which one, numbnuts, they all contradict each other. Man, you are such a tiny-minded gnat, you know that?") in the style of those paintings. dark, brooding, suffering. cause thats what it is. Its a story of suffering and redemption. Last Tempatation dissapointed me, because it felt sanitised. it was glossy, too bright. The best filmic adaptations of this story have been The Gospel According To Matthew, and, for all the faults mentioned previously, The Last Temptation Of Christ, because both are searing, intensely personal works. And thats what religion is, something personal. And im not going to say if im christian or not, becuase A: it provides ammunition to people already WAAAYYYY over-equiped, and secondly, It's none of your fucking business. ("how can you say its none of our business, when you're posting on an internet forum, revealing your stupid opinion to thousands who didnt fucking ask for it!!")What i will say is that some of the most beautiful images i have ever seen, moving or otherwise, have been borne from religion, from the paintings of Krishna which i love, to Serreras' PissChrist, and on and on. Man, im waffling so much here. Listen ,despite my pretentious piffle, i just wanted to add myself to the legions of people anticipating this film with barely-supressable glee. I cannot wait. Simply cannot wait.
-
Sorry, dude, the archaeology doesn't bear you out. The current debate in Isreali archaeology is whether David and Solomon were totally mythical or whether they were local chieftans. The archaeology shows that there was never atime when the lower kingdom ever controlled Northern Palestine. For the best info on the latest archaeological evidence you need to fins a book called THE BIBLE UNEARTHED by Isreal Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. Finkelstein is the head of the archaeology department at Tel Avi University and Silberman is a respeted Israeli archaeologist as well. Check it out here: http://www.bibleinterp.com/commentary/Finkelstein_Silberman022001.htm--------------------------------The historical books of the OT were all contrived as propaganda during the reign of Josiah in the 7th century BCE, That's BC fucking E, motherfucker. "BC" isn't even correct anyway. Jesus couldn't have been born any later than 4 BCE so if you want to count from the birth of your mythical fairy you don't even have the right starting date. And don't bother trying to correct me when you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Now....isn't it time for you to go pray to Jesus to take away your desires for other men? Piss off, bitch.
-
Wow I did check out your website and jee didn't faze me. We seem to have two conflicting views. I beleive I'm right and you believe your right. While your "bible"(lol couldnt resist) was put together by two Archaelogists mine was compiled from the the findings of Archaelogists too. As well as historians, anthropologists, linguists, geographers, art historians, scientists, and other specialists. Hmm I think my book sounds more authoritative, but thats just me. David in fact was a renegade outlawed by Saul who went over to the side of the Philistines. When Saul saw what he was facing he took his own life on his sword and thus David became King of the Israelites, as the Hebrews of the United Kingdom(not britain stupid)became known thereafter until the breakup after Solomons death. There is archaelogical evidence as well as evidence from other sources that sadly your text is lacking. The problem with most atheists(not all, but definetly you Mr. Pink.) is that because you have nothing to believe in you think its your duty to "convert" other people to your side. I always love when atheists go show me evidence instead of stories. While there is evidence all around there is nothing "substantial"(i use the word lightly) to prove in your view that anyone is "up there". You dont think that the billions of people that have a religion dont know this. Its called Faith. The Faith to believe in something that isnt tangible. That is what seperates the believers from the non-believers. Through thick and thin believers have Faith in what they don't see. Non-believers(atheists) dont have Faith and thus hate those that do because they cant understand how to love something that you cant see. Faith is the reason that people are "fucking morons" for believing in something you cant see. It must be pretty shitty to not believe in anything. Maybe on your deathbed you will come to terms on how you wasted your life beliving in nothing. If only you had kept the faith. "If you keep bragging about something you did yesterday it means you havent done anything today."
-Liberate tutame ex inferris. -
"I would argue that anything which lies outside of the empirical....that is whatever cannot be discerned or inferred from sensory observation...has no relationship to the univesre anyway and is not worth thinking about." Can you empirically prove that assertion? No, because it is based on an assumption that ONLY the physical world exists. Belief that God does not exist is based on this assumption, that cannot be physically proven. Science and its method of proof relies on physical evidence and data. The scientific method of proof is also based on an assumption that cannot be physically proven. Science is limited to the physical world, and based on its own presupposition, is too limited in scope to make a meaningful statement about the reality of the spiritual, the supernatural, the existence of God. Regardless of burden of proof, science is too limited to even attempt to a universal negative, the assertion that God doesn't exist, or the assumption that only the empirical can be considered fact or objective truth. This limit of science is most glaring when dealing with the origin of the universe, the First Cause, to the Big Bang, which empircal data has acknowledged as accurate. The universe is expanding , and therefore, had a beginning, which led to Einstein finally conceding the existence of God, the First Cause. What is the biggest science discovery of 2003 that the scientific world does not want to acknowledge? That 96% of the universe is invisible to the scientific eye. Science is no longer a reliable paradigm for rationality. On the other hand, Christianity is based on the data of historical facts, and a historical Jewish figure: a man who is historically reported to perform miracles and rise from the dead. A man who the reasonable agree was a great moral teacher, therefore must be honest and sane. This great man also happened to clearly state, numerous times, that he is God become man. For those ignorantly calling this history myth, ignores the objective interpretation of scripture is that of simple historical reporting, and does not resemble pagan myth in its structure. Its resemblence to myth is a result of being the fulfillment of the desire in man for God before He was revealed. Myth is a reflection of that desire expressed by man's imaginatin. Divine revelation was the REAL fulfillment of that desire, for all real desires have real objects.
-
Jan 21, 2004 12:03:22 AM CST
To Christian haters, Wahoo Rob, Daddylonghead,and Donknotts
by agnosticyesno
First of all I must start of by stating that I am an agnostic and think that Stoic philosophy is more vital than Christianity especially today. Even though I don
-
These two words, ideas, concepts, whatever... are not the same thing, regardless of what many people think. Religion is a construct of man, pure and simple. The best summation of this that I've heard is that "God didn't fax the Bible down from heaven." Men wrote it, every word of it, and men decided what to include in said Bible and what to exclude. Men with agendas. Which is not to say that it's all bullshit, but much of it is pretty self-serving to those who pushed it as "God's divinely inspired word."
Now God... that's another matter. You can argue about His form, His name, His rules, whatever. But if you can seriously believe that the universe and all it entails just happened to come into existence by some fluke accident, YOU're the fuckwad who's buying into bullshit that's totally lacking in ANY logic or intelligence! -
Thank you for educating us "ignorant" folks. You may just want to check your definition of evolution. Survival of the fittest does not take place just between species, it takes place in what you referred to as "all against all." Try to make sure you get your facts straight.
-
I would like to post a reply to Mr. Pink's demand that someone provide him with proof of the reality of Jesus, or,"shut up", to put in very nice terms. I would quote the existential philosopher, Kierkegaard. " Faith that is rooted in understanding is not true faith, but merely an intellectual acceptance of doctrines containing dogmatic truths. Genuine faith, which lies at the heart of Christianity, cannot be sanctioned by human reason." I think Mr. Pink needs to do a little soul-searching, and find out why he is so bitter and hateful. It sounds to me like he is, in reality, begging for someone to show him the path that his obviously empty life is searching for.
By the way, I am not some blind, evangelical, unquestionioning Christian. I have come to my beliefs through much soul searching, and intense study and reading of the subject. -
Sonny_Williams...
Actually there are scores of people that are extremely intelligent that believe that God doesn't exist in any form. Intelligent people with different views make cases and logical coherent arguments for their perspectives and don -
The people at this site seem to have lots of it. Most of it seemed very convincing to me. www.anchorstone.com
-
I still must hold that the existence of some form of higher power, an initial source of all other creation, is self-evident. Whether you choose to call it God or Nature or whatever... all of THIS began somewhere.
Before the Big Bang, someone or something lit the fuse... and created the fuse... and created the matter which is still being flung into the infinite reaches of the universe. No scientist has yet even attempted to explain where or how matter came to be in purely scientific terms, and likely never will. Science has only proven that you can't make something from nothing. Matter and energy can be transformed, but not created out of nothingness. Therefore, that which DID create matter and energy is beyond pure science, really beyond any human comprehension. And if you have to give it a name, God is as good as any. -
Saying that a higher power exists is not the same thing as saying that a Sentient Being or self-aware First Cause exists. What happened before the Big Bang is what scientists are trying to solve that
-
It looks like mel might make what he put into the "Passion of the Christ" just in the first week. Tickets for it are selling at an amazing clip. One orginzation alone purchased 18,000 tickets. And this is happening all over.I now that I will be one.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 439 total posts 165 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 144 total posts 142 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 153 total posts 138 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 55 total posts 47 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 196 total posts 45 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 36 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 127 total posts 36 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 35 total posts 35 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 513 total posts 29 posts
- The Sensorties Revisit The Friday Docback (And Still Smell)!! DOCTOR WHO Story #7 Again, The Coming Of Season/Series 7, And More!! -- 117 total posts 26 posts