Cool News
A Letter About THE PASSION!! Roger Friedman
Hi, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab...
David Poland has often been an outspoken critic of this site, and of Harry and myself. Despite that, he’s a good read, and his Movie City News site is a great way to browse headlines from all over the net. Right now, he’s got a story up that is absolutely essential reading for anyone following all the hubbub about the release of Mel Gibson’s THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, and I think it’s an important issue that he addresses:
CLICK HERE FOR THE STORY!!The reason it’s important is because Roger Friedman’s factually inaccurate and borderline-malicious lies about the release pattern of the film have already been picked up by other news sources and run as fact. Which they are not. This is one of those films that has become a political hot potato in any conversation, and we’re getting tons of mail about it every day. One letter in particular struck me, a response to last week’s story that Harry ran:
Dear Harry,
I am a big fan of your site, visit it almost daily, and have tremendous respect for your writing. You are a lover of cinema, and I have really appreciated that cinema is the focus of your site.
When some of your more recent news about Passion of Christ came out a few months ago you posted your enthuisiasm for it. I was a little disturbed because you never mentioned the controversy surrounding it. The controversy had existed for the prior several months, but when your news about it came out many people were still not familiar with it. Hence my surprise that your story contributed to the movie's hype without mentioning the controversy. But I said to myself, "Harry knows how to distinguish political and social controversy surrounding a movie from a movie itself. He's not going to publicly take sides in this debate."
That is why I was even more surprised when you posted a new story on your site called "Rabbi speaks out to defend Passion of Christ." As much as the article presents an interesting point of view, I have seen no mention on your site of the other side of the debate, let alone reference to the existence of any controversy to begin with.
I agree, as you say in your article, that it is a "very serious topic." But because the other position on the debate is not suitably referenced, the posting of this article projects an unbalanced view.
You speak to a large audience who for the most part get their entertainment news solely from you. Since your site has decided to move into the realm of reporting on controversial current events (as you said, "this is a different sort of article"), can I expect a rethinking of your editorial policy on this point?
Best regards,
Lee TesslerLee, you ask a fair question, and here’s my take on things. You cannot discuss THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST without sparking heated debate right now. People have already taken sides without even seeing the film. I think Harry felt that there was so much noise about the film that the controversy that was brewing was understood without us having to sum it up in another article. Many of the reviews that came out of BNAT addressed the controversy. One of the reasons I’m still struggling with my own review of the film, which I hope to run sometime this week, is because I’m so deeply torn about it, and I’m aware that whatever I write will become a political bat for people to wield in the debate. Right now, I think what’s crucial is for people to actually see the movie, and to let Mel speak for himself. For example...
Hey Guys,
I just wanted to let you know that ABC News has put up a bit of the interview with Mel Gibson that will air Monday February 16, 2004 at 10 p.m. EST on Primetime. The interview addresses the concerns of a few individuals -- *cough*ADL*cough*. Mel gets very personal and even reveals there was a time 10 years ago in which he thought about committing suicide.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE EXCERPTS FROM THE INTERVIEW NOW!!
Sincerely,
SCaRfaCeThis is going to be one of the most-discussed movies of the year, no matter where you personally come down on it. I think the dialogue that it will generate is important and interesting, and I think the less emotional it is, the more valuable it could be.
"Moriarty" out.
-
+ Expand All
-
that's the most important people, that you know I am first! Oh my god, I'm so excited! In my history of my AICN I've never been first!
-
Go scarlett johnasson! Go Bill Murray! at least our British Academy has good enough sense to nominate scarlett not once but twice! and she won for the better film Lost in T. I'd rut it, btw.
-
The truth is, Jesus lived over 2000 years ago, if at all. The vast majority of what we know about the man is from texts rife with mistranslations. The film should be viewed and examined for the thoughts and images it presents and not dismissed out of hand. I realize that Jesus is the basis of one of the largest religions in the world, but no film is going to change somebody's mind one way or the other when it comes to spiritual belief systems. If you have a problem with it then don't see it. This isn't TRIUMPH OF THE WILL. It's not telling a story that hasn't already been told over and over again. I can't wait for the furor over this film to die down.
-
Can't wait to see this movie, it will probably scare the sh*t out of me(the floating Devil..creepy!). I hope we get some good scenes with Jesus & his twelve, the apostles fooking rule!
See you there opening day -
What nerve.
-
somebody at foxnews is lying and making up facts for their stories! Who would've believed it! they have so much journalistic integrity and respect for the truth at fox news. I'm appalled and ashamed at you fox news. but seriously, the other side of the passion debate is being seriously under represented by this site and i get the feeling that its because the big guy's got a hard on for mel and his missionary flick because they were nice enough to show up a BNAT.
-
Re: The Jews killed Christ. Brush up on your history kids. Jerusalem c.33 A.D. was an extremely volatile place. Jesus of Nazareth came from a sect called the Essenes who were considered radical fringe extremists. He was a rebel who stood up against the RELIGIOUS ORDER and POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT and if he was around today tearing up the NYSE like he overturned tables in the Temple, he would be proclaimed a dangerous revolutionary terrorist, his followers smeared as Christo-fascists. Our feckless leader would issue absolutist garbage about those being "With us or Against us" -- much like Pontius Pilate's "Do you deny you are the King" strawman -- and Christ would be frog-marched to Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay for treasonous thought crimes and assemblies, to say nothing of his pronounced Marxist ideology (Luke 18:22-25; Acts 4:32-35; 1 Corinthians 10:24; 1 Corinthians 10:33, 2 Corinthians 8:9-15; Acts 2:44-47, etc.). It wasn't "the Jews" that killed Christ, (technically, it was the occupying Romans; Christ himself was a Jew), it was, I repeat, the RELIGIOUS ORDER and POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT that convicted, sentenced and executed the "Sacrificial Lamb." (And really, why do Christians get so upset about this? Plenty of men were executed on the cross, and if Jesus had been set free, they wouldn't have their perfect religion now, would they?)
-
Feb 16, 2004 6:45:42 PM CST
Formerly, all the world was mad, says ObscureReference.
by fluffyunbound
But he has attained sanity and wisdom. And as a result, he fulfills all the potentialities of Man to such a limitless degree that he will inspire the reverence of all the generations to come. No one will ever possibly look at Obscure Reference and think "Man had virtues in the past that he now lacks". No, not when they look at ObscureReference. Bask in his insight. And foolish people like Mel Gibson, who are still mad, deserve to have despicable hacks like Roger Friedman tell deliberate lies about them in print. They should expect no better in their madness.
-
Just like Mel. Great talent, always a director who brings something interesting to the table. But to say his wife might not go to heaven because shes not a Catholic... and to make a movie about the last hours of Christ's life and add otherwordly elements....
-
I am shocked and dismayed? Don't take it too hard or personally guys, Poland has a habit of being skeptical and not taking hyper-ventilating sycophants and log-rollers seriously, it's not just you guys, honest.
-
...OH GOD WHY'D YOU LET HIM LIVE?. Isn't it incedible how assholes always find religion after swimming in booze and coke, then they have a vomit-smeared brakdown and come back gunning for nazi-christ. This is a bad movie. If it's compelling, it's even worse. These movies are used as recruiting tools all over the world, especially in poor rural area where TV is unknown. Evil shit. Just like The Patriot (mels fictional war crimes) When we we soldiers (or napalming Cambodia, why it was heroic) and Braveheart (the most enetertaining movie ever to encourage homosexual murder) FUCK GIBSON AND HIS NAZI GOD!
-
He was real, he came acrossed honest. He didn't bullshit. It was funny to see him talk, and respond to Sawyer in a matter of fact way, most of the time people come accross as being so damn fake on these things.
-
saw the abc interview.
he did well in defending the movie and himself. and he said the essential thing - the movie is an adaptation of events depicted in the four gospels.
that correctly puts the point of contention then between detractors and the gospel accounts.
yes, many challenge the historical veracity of the four books, contain ulterior motives of the writers', etc etc. but almost all the points of contention stem directly from the gospel accounts (pilate's sympathetic rendering, the blood curse, etc.) so at the very least, that reframes the discussion considerably.
especially when a good deal of christians (and apparently mel) do indeed believe the gospels as the inspired word of god.
so then the question rightly becomes, 'are the gospels antisemitic'?
again, rational christians would say not.
and come on, even from a pure movie perspective, ALL the good guys are jewish! -
why is it that the religious types are allowed to get away with murder, say whatever they want in the name of " blah blah blah" and yet the non believers are strung up because of a few harsh words. i wouldn't have used such vigorous terms as obref, but he pretty much hits the nail on the head. you religious types scare the fuck out of me. i just wish we could find life on another planet so we could be done with all this religious malarky. time to move on. i actually have a t-shirt from the band NEGATIVELAND that says "Christianity is stupid. GIVE UP" with a loaf of bread on it. i get a giggle out of it everytime i put it on. i have to be careful though as i have gotten into a couple of fisties cause of it. mostly though i just get hurled abuse from middle aged men. because of a t-shirt with a few words on it. oh, and the reason why i am posting: if you go to the sydney morning herald.com "www.smh.com.au" you can see some articles concerning this flick. there is even an interview with his father...er, not god, mel's father.
-
I have seen the trailer and thats all I need to see.
Gibson has "accurately"!! recreated, whatever bits of the Bible he used. He has gone to the Lengths of using Aramaic in the film but has failed to notice/accept that no northern European white peoples have ever spoken Aramaic. Problem there isn't there. I have noticed this is problem for "certain types" to accept. JESUS WAS FROM THE MIDDLE EAST AND THERE FORE NOT WHITER THAN WHITE. That perfectly sculpted beard is a bit weird as well. All the gore of his death but none of the lacking personal hygiene no doubt rife in the 1st century. Not that it matters its just a work fictional entertainment. Or is it. ooohhhh. -
but not for religious reasons. I have reasons, and those reasons are my own. thank you, and good day.
-
I don't know if you're a total idiot but your first talkback here didn't exactly endear you towards anyone with your ill-advised and completely incorrect babblings about Catholicism. You come off as little more than a bigot, and while you're acting so intellectually aloof, I'd like to point out that Science has yet to offer definite proof of anything regarding existence or creation. Evolution, Black Holes, all those lovely words, they are all THEORIES. In essence, bullshit. See how it easy it is to crap all over someone's beliefs/opinions?
-
I don't know if this has been discussed much yet on the boards here; but whenever the rabbis refer to Jesus in the Talmud (which is rare, and often rather allegorical), they are not only unremittingly hostile--they also take full and utter responsibility for killing Jesus (and damning his soul to some rather picturesque hells, plus painting him as a magician who led the people astray and being a semi-humorously inept rabbi.)
Those rabbis are _glad_ Jesus is dead; and are proud to be the ones who killed him. No mention is made of Roman involvement at all: it's all Jewish, all the way--parading him for forty days through the streets trumpeting his crimes to the people, and then hanging him from a cabbage stalk. (Like I said, often rather allegorical... {g})
I'm not saying this to spark off pissing contests, much less anti-Judaism (much much less anti-Semitism, which isn't quite the same thing). Nor am I bringing this up as justification for any doctrine saying 'all Jews everywhere are specially to blame for the death of Jesus'. It's just, y'know, interesting. Once upon a time, the earliest surviving Jewish authoritative opinions about Jesus were basically: he's dead, he deserved to die (and boil in semen in hell, etc.), we did it, only us, and we're glad we did it.
The canonical Gospels (and Mel's movie to some extent) actually paint the Jewish administration's condemnation of Jesus in a somewhat more _favorable_ (and realistically nuanced) light than what these earliest post-Temple Jewish authorities are themselves passing along: they go into detail about all the various things Jesus was doing and saying that hacked them off so badly, made them so worried the Romans would launch a punitive strike on the nation, etc.
I just think it's kind of ironic. {shrug}{g}
Jason Pratt
swordtotheheartkingofstories.blogspot.com
jasonpratt@compuserve.com -
shadowfax: sure evolution and the big bang are theories, but they are based in scientific fact and researched and formulated by the brightest scientific minds of the last century. so unless you're prepared to be completely insane and swear off science, lets keep the science vs. religion comparisons to a minimum since the research and facts that go into formulating scientific theory could easily fill your entire house and most religions are based solely in the words from a single text (true of judaism and islam as well as christianity).
Mynameisnobody: jesus did not found catholicism, he didn't found any church at all. his followers did, but it wasn't catholicism. it was the beginings of christianity. it wasn't until more than 300 years after christ's death that constantine (the roman emperor) adopted christianity as the official roman religion, a move that would lead to the advent of catholicism and the roman catholic just a meager few hundred years after that. don't mess with me, i went to catholic school for 12 years. -
I have no religious beliefs. My lack of belief in a god is complete and utter. I'm not even one of those people who says, "I am a spiritual but not religious person." I'm not spiritual either. There is only man, and then the void. I have known this for my entire life. There was no period of questioning, no grand awakening. I didn't suddenly realize that religion was false. I always could tell. So I don't have any religious beliefs for you to try to make me ashamed of. // Since I was an atheist, when I went to learn the history of progress I chose to interpret it, naturally enough, as the history of me. I viewed history as a march of the forces of skepticism against the dark forces of superstition and ignorance - a long, hard slog that led finally to history's greatest creation, namely, me. // Except that there's a problem. Looking at myself realistically, there is no reason for me to think that I am history's greatest creation. And unless you are hiding a lot more promise than I think you are, you aren't history's greatest creation, either. And I looked around myself, and all I saw pretty much anywhere were pathetic wretches who wouldn't even be history's greatest creation if we were discussing the history of dogs. And I wondered to myself why this might be. // And then I looked back at the same intellectuall and cultural "progression", and looked at it in a different way. And I noted something interesting: namely, that skepticism has ruined man. It has set him "free" only in the sense that he now has nothing worth having and nothing to lose, so it is safe for him to be allowed to spend his days downloading porn and telling himself how clever and wise he is. Skepticism has polluted everything it has touched since the first time Socrates spoke to Critias. // We have destroyed superstition, but with it we have destroyed culture as well. There is a reason that anthropologists and artists go to great lengths to try to find primitive cultures untouched by the west, to attempt to gain insight and inspiration from them. It's because our society is arid, worthless, pointless, and dead, without mystery other than who is going to win the Super Bowl, and without beauty except for hookers on web cams. Have we really improved man? There has been technological advancement, yes, but man himself has decayed and become a disgrace to his forebears. // I suppose I have to admit that I personally LIKE being an atheist. I don't see any reason to change. I could never force my mind to bend itself that way. And it would be a very fine world indeed if I could go on being "blessed" with reason, while the rest of you were turned back into people who actually were capable of producing a culture worth living in. That would be a very pleasant thing, assuming I showed enough sense to avoid getting burned at the stake. But that isn't an option. If critical reason's sweep of the globe had produced a landscape of Ayn Rand heros, that would be one thing. But it didn't do that. It produced the world that you see, which is full of walking shitpiles ony too ready to pat themselves on the back because they are so much more clever than, say, Aeschylus, or Tolstoy, or Thomas Aquinas, or Titian, or... // So that is why I started with you. I'm just tired of it all. There was no purpose to your showing up here, to this discussion, except to pile on in your own little way to the process that has destroyed humanity and placed it below the beasts of the field in terms of moral worth. Let Mel Gibson make his little work of art. Maybe it will suck. Religion is dead either way, so why bother to spew your acid of doubt onto a harmless little piece of art that has no chance of accomplishing anything against the tide of history?
-
It is the same, lame, stupid, sad story and I'm pissed!!! Where are all of you Beyonce/Lois Lane Kingpin/Micheal Clarke Duncan complainers now?? Jesus was nottttt a white man. Skin of bronze!!!! Lived in the dessert??? Why does Mel go to such trouble to tell such a story and then not correct the most vain and egomaniacal crime of this story's mistelling. I don't ever want to hear from you people again about why Nick Fury comes to screen looking like Mace Windu. If you can remake your God in you own image, as Jesus was, as the message of Christianity spread thru to the western "white" world, then you have no right to complain about these other more trivial matters. Mel, you suck! Thanks for making a movie that is very compelling and beautiful, but not visually truthful or helpfully compassionate. It is truly the passion of Christ. It is the Passion of anger and vengeance in Christians. I took Renaissance and Baroque art history. I've already seen your Northern European Christ!!
-
Feb 17, 2004 2:20:09 PM CST
Curses! Unmasked Again! And then foiled by crappy servers.
by fluffyunbound
I had composed a neat little post back to Obscure Reference about how I have been trying to do the 12-step program back to mainstream philosophical thinking, when I was MOST CRUELLY snubbed and thwarted by this site and its talkback software. Harry, you don't need to upgrade the graphic design or the look and feel of the site. You can leave that as outdated as you want. I actually prefer it this way. But FIX THE DAMN TALKBACKS AND THE DAMN TALKBACK ORDER. It's one task. One. 1. The number after zero. If you can't accomplish this ONE task, why do you think you can produce a movie? You can't project-manage a 1-task job? You can't delegate ONE JOB? HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PRODUCE A MOVIE? Think of all the brilliant talkbacks of years gone by. How can you let them suffer like this?
-
His facts are no more accurate than those of Friedman, but I don't supposed Mr. Poland will be firing himself any time soon. Sadly, as he himself says of Friedman, "ignorance about the city of Chicago got in his way utterly." As a mere thirty seconds at www.chicagoreader.com's listings show, there are actually THIRTEEN first run theaters in the city, not FIVE. That's right, nearly THREE TIMES the number Poland suggested, and that's not counting second-run theaters and arthouses. If Poland, who got so self-righteous in his article, managed to misreport the facts so seriously in one case, I have absolutely NO reason whatsoever to believe the veracity of the information about Florida, LA or New York. Sorry, David, but you were so busy getting your panties in a twist about something at FOXNews that you ended up making precisely the same mistakes. As an actual Chicagoan, I knew this was bullshit the minute I read it, and I suspect others around the country will have the same reaction.
-
Feb 17, 2004 5:06:18 PM CST
The Chicago Reader page lists 9 theatres as being in downtown Ch
by fluffyunbound
And I have no idea what percentage of them are first-run. Could it be that 5 of them are?
-
I have no wish to denigrate those fairly eminent people who have stated that the Passion is a great film, but it seems to me that Mr Gibson's track record as a director is not entirely inspiring. Braveheart had good battle scenes, but they were very similar to battle scenes in a number of other films, and I found the rest of the film quite irritating due the absolute infallibility of Gibson's Wallace. Has anyone else noticed that Wallace never does anything wrong? He is unflinchingly noble and heroic and charming and totally without any character flaws whatsoever. He is only defeated due to the treachery of those around him. It struck me as being the kind of biography that an embittered, deluded Wallace would mutter to himself as he sat in his cell waiting to be executed. Given that this was also a film directed by and starring Mr Gibson, it also struck me as fairly egotistical. On the subject of the Passion, it would actually be quite reassuring if Gibson was placing the blame for Jesus' death on the Jews, as his previous films indicated that he considered all the ills of the world to be the fault of the English. Now, given the kicking that ObscureReference has been receiving, there seem to be some fairly knowledgeable religious types around here, so, can someone answer a question that's periodically troubled me: Did God want or need Jesus to die? If he hadn't died, what would be done about all of our sins (the ones that he died for)? This is not intended to be a provocative question, incidentally. I really do want to know
-
...of the five Poland mentions, Webster Place is not downtown--it's a neighborhood theater. The rest are all in the Loop. Of course, what Poland did was only include one theater in a neighborhood, and it happens to be in a middle-to-upper white folks' neighborhood. Each of the others is located in areas that have far more people working in offices or retail than actual residents. Once I saw that, I decided in favor of including all of the theaters in the city limits, since Poland omitted them. This means I included, y'know, all the movie theaters people actually go to, since they're in the neighborhoods where people live and they don't have to pay 12 dollars to park while they watch "Torque". If you actually include the other theaters that are still in the city, *not* suburban, as the guy implies, it may change things. Hell, I have no intention of paying to see this crap, so I didn't bother checking to see if it's playing any of the additional eight theaters (multiplexes all) he ignored. All I'm saying is that this jerk is playing just as fast and loose with the facts as the guy he's reaming out. That kind of hypocrisy really cheeses me off. Again, for the record: I ignored art houses like The Music Box and The Gene Siskel Film Center, as well as all second-run theaters. These are only mainstream multiplexes that serve the residents of the city proper. Poland couldn't be bothered to include them, though, which makes his factfinding as faulty as anyone else's.
-
we're talking about theology, hermeneutics and epistemology on aint it cool? HAH! anyhoo, the protestant theological answer (which is the one i'm familiar with) is if christ did not die, there would be no possible salvation for anyone. and problematically to the other two monotheistic religions, if christ weren't god, that sacrifice wouldn't have meant anything. and don't be too shocked at mel's comment about his wife fellows. after all, he allows that she and anyone from any religion can get to heaven. most conservative protestants do not believe this at all. it's a very exclusive club they have. if you ain't a bornagainer, you ain't gettin' in - there's not even a purgatory in their theology... straight to hell for all eternity. but no worries: eventually, we'll genetically stop the ravages of aging and we'll all live happily forever on the moon.
-
Feb 18, 2004 1:00:04 AM CST
Harry and the AICN team: I am offended by the lead in ad for thi
by myglockyourmouth
Please correct this situation or I shall write the pointy hatted Pope for his condemnation of this peanut out of the anus eating promoting site. I feel AICN ads are the devil's dooorknob. This is my talkback to this issue. In the alternative, could you inform Ms. Daniel that I would like to do said act, either salted, unsalted, dry roasted or of the mixed variety. Thank you for prompt attention to my concerns.
-
Oded Fehr(sp?) as he looked in the Mummy films would be dead on for how Jesus should look, he may seem older than 33 but aging was more drastic then so he would have been just right. He's a relatively handsome man so they'd have to make him look more average. But this isn't my issue. I have respect for all religions and creeds including the Jewish people. But I find the whole protest with this film ridiculous. To say this movie would lead towards hate against them is totally insane. By this tokan, Germans should feel as if they'd be hated in this day and age to extreme levels considering the abundance of Holocaust films. It's 2000 years ago, the audience for this film are going to be pretty sophisticated people, I mean, they have to know how to read, right? Therefore, they'll know not to start hating Jewish people now over the crucifiction of Jesus Christ.
And in regards to gore, if it's realistic that's fine, I doubt it'll be cartoony Kill Bill level but closer to Gladiator or Blackhawk Down which is where it needs to be.
That's my take, thanks for reading. -
Feb 18, 2004 3:34:11 AM CST
The only side I'm on is that this is yet another film that some
by theginger twit
-
I understand that you believe in God and Creation. But I've always been at a loss as to why Evolution has to be absolutely impossible to believe when it's so easy to believe in a Supreme Being plonking us all down at the point of a finger. A somewhat suspect theory of people like yourself where the only proof comes from a book which when read properly speaks very openly of 'man returning to the Earth from whence he came'. But seriosuly look at it logically. We grow froma single organism from conception. Our own life span is a mini evolution. Stepping back it's very easy to see the grand scale of life growing in much the same fasion as an individual. Let me point you to a Turtle. The sea variety have flippers. the Land dwellers have feet. Both are born on land, so logical reasoning says that sometime in the past there was an off set where baby turtles didn't make it to the waves, but to the joining forest and ponds. Maybe I'm just making it up. Then there are Dolphins, a fish like creature which can survive on land and breath air - so long as its skin is kept moist. Ever hear of beaching dolphins? They don't all die. This then takes me to seals. Have a good look at a seal. Best example of species evolution is dogs and breeders. I have a Dingo and a Kelpie. They bred and now I have a dingo kelpie. Looks like a kelpie but has the colours of the dingo. You see what I'm getting at? I'm not here to dispute you're belief in God. But I do have my reservations about a man in the clouds throwing lightning bolts. Afterall, why would God need a human body. It is more logical that God did not create man in his image, but man created God in his. And why can't God work through evolution. You're basically telling us all that you believe in the big guy, but can't fathom his powers. Is evolution beyond his capabilities? Personally I've always believed God to be a mass unification of all life energy. Like drops of water forming a great ocean. But I'll also throw one more thing at you. Look at your body. You are the same upside down and round about. Men have testicals, women have overies. These are our eyes on the other end. Our feet are our hands. Our arses are our mouths. See it? So stop speaking out of yours. And I'll do the same. Oh one more thing, next ime you sneeze, you just had a face orgasm. Remember that next time you do it in church.
-
Well done to ObscureReference and FluffyUnbound for letting all those religious fuck wits know what time it is. I
-
Feb 18, 2004 5:52:24 AM CST
The amount of hostility and venom towards anyone of faith on thi
by darthsnoogans
And for what reason? Have any Christians you've all come across really scarred you this badly, that you lump in a few sicko pedophiles in with people who have a genuine love for God and the Christian faith, or you immediately categorize all Christians as uppity or foolish?Do you really understand what REAL Christianity is about? If you did, you'd know that actual forgiveness only happens when that person repents and lives from that moment on to erase said destructive behavior from their life (it puts you right with God, but certainly not the authorities or the people you've hurt). I wouldn't consider a priest who continually abuses kids to be on the right track with God. And as offended as some of you are by Christianity and anyone who so much as mentions Jesus to you, I'd think that some of you would take into consideration the offense that some people feel when they're immediately written off as either pious or idiotic solely on the basis of their beliefs. Give me a break..."Nazi God"? Have any of you even read the Gospels? Frankly, it sounds like a lot of you are just regurgitating the underinformed opinions of others.
-
...I am going to talk back anyway. I am surprised at how zealous the anti-religious people are on this site. It's not enough to disagree with someone with faith, but they must ridicule and denegrate them too. I guess we are all zealous of our personal god, whether it is Jesus or Science or Nothing. If you are a Christian, you know that Mel Gibson was right: we ALL killed Christ, and understand His sacrifice. He died for us, to save us. Everyone, do something courageous: watch the movie objectively. Then read the book the movie was based on and see if Mel got it right. The gospels are short, easy to read, and have an uplifting message even for non-Christians. You never know, you might even find the joy we Christians feel too by coming to Him.
-
No Jesus is the sexiest tomboy beanpole on the planet? No Jesus has a beer and cheets on Mary Magdalene? What-what? /////For real though, this is a pretty damn good discussion going on here. Too bad I couldn't access the jacked-up "server cannot be found" website for several days. I actually ejoy it when people express honest opinions rather than "It sucks, it rocks, Star Wars vs. LOTR, "fan fiction",etc." Even when their opinions are obvious bullshit or bull-baiting. There are some pretty interesting questions raised that never occured to me. "If religion, the source of so much misery and injustice, has been abolished, are we really that much better off as a society now that we are collectively less superstitious?" I would have thought that I would have said yes without even thinking it through (my own bias), but now I'm not so sure. Does that mean I'm gonna run off with the next Jehova's Witness or Mormon that shows up at my door? Not a chance, but its good to ponder things once in a while.
-
Shadowfax:"I'd like to point out that Science has yet to offer definite proof of anything regarding existence or creation."
REPLY: One the very tenets of Science is that nothing is ever "proven". That's one of the big differences between science and religion; nothing scientific is ever written in stone. We always promise to look at the facts and throw away or alter previous beliefs that are shown to be untrue. Religion on the other hand likes to imprison men like Galileo for having the audacity to say stupid shit, like "the world is round!" because religion is unmalleable.
Also, science has shed an unbelievable amount of light on the nature of existence just by observation, an easily reproduced type of "proof". To say otherwise is ridiculous.//////
Shadowfax:Evolution, Black Holes, all those lovely words, they are all THEORIES. In essence, bullshit.
REPLY: Just because something is a theory doesn't automatically make it bullshit. The public has a different definition of what a theory is than what the word means in scientific circles. It's not just a hunch or a notion. A theory is really just a framework that you hang a bunch of facts on, but at the same time, the facts are what gives the theory shape. You can dispel a fact by showing it to be untrue, and the theory must change to accommodate, but that does not make the theory itself any less true. If tomorrow something were found in the fossil record that showed that man and chimpanzees did not evolve from a common ancestor, it still wouldn't disprove the theory of evolution because there are so many other pieces of evidence that demonstrate evolution (For example: bacteria that withstand antibiotics, increased milk production by selective breeding of livestock, all that we know about molecular genetics, population studies, etc.) //// Sorry to make such a long "down from on high"-type of post on this topic, but my degrees are in molecular biology, so people who drop ass on topics with no real knowledge really twist me off at the nipples, ya know? -
I'd love to discuss my views on the subject. However, if you've got an arsenal of canned responses to every point I make, what's the point? All that would tell me is that you have no interest in understanding the subject, only an interest in shooting down my argument. If you really want to know my views, e-mail me anytime.
-
Not too sound pious, but to expect those who truly understand the gravity and importance of this film to put their trivial emotions, sarcastic opinions, and irrelevant beliefs aside for a moment. There have been many films made about the life of Christ. Therefore one must ask, "what makes this one different"? If we reflect for a moment, we can recall the controversy of "The Last Temptation of Christ". Nevertheless, the difference is that it provoked a negative response from Christians not Jews. Although I could go on, there is not enough time to truly delve into the subject. Semantics are of no value here except to further confuse. What we are dealing with here is the power of film....the moving "image" (think)....how although this film may present the last twelve hours of Christ's life as it is depicted by the verses of the Bible....it is primarily the affect the "reality" of seeing things we already know in a vivid recreation via the most powerful medium on earth, and how it will sway what we believe in our minds and the way we will react once we translate that into modern society. It is the power of film over humanity and belief that we are dealing with....nothing more nothing less. Please respond, I would love to hear your thoughts.
-
My thoughts on organized religion (Christianity for this point) is that a lot of it is falling into the same trap that the Pharisees fell into during the time of Christ. Namely, following a set of rules for its own sake, rather than out of love and respect for God. Along with that comes piousness and the holier-than-thou attitude that is the antithesis of what Christ taught. Sometimes Christians (and people of other faiths, of course) become so wrapped up in rules that they forget why they try to live that way in the first place. I should try to live the way God wants me to out of love and respect for my Creator, and because I know that there are certain selfish behaviors that are destructive to me and others. As for the whole science vs. creation issue, it's an old argument. All I know is that someone who tries to use science to disprove God is a fool, and someone who uses God to disprove good science is probably just as foolish. Apples and oranges. One Christian message board I post to gets into some pretty heated arguments between people who think that evolutionary theory is a threat to God and their beliefs (it isn't by any means), and those who believe in God yet respect the logical aspects of evolution (flawed theory as it is).
-
The BIBLE is TRUTH.
The TRUTH is TRUE whether you believe it or not.
Until you actually READ with the INTENT to CHANGE & GROW --- You will NEVER FULLY EXPERIENCE THE WORD OF GOD AS LIFE SHOULD BE.
I AM AN EXTREME CHRISTIAN!
A DEVOUT BELIEVER IN GOD THE FATHER, JESUS CHRIST THE SON, THE HOLY SPIRIT & THE BIBLE.
A WORLDCHANGER!
A TRAILBLAZER!
A MINISTER OF RECONCILIATION
A KINGDOM AMBASSADOR!
A GODCHASER!
I AM A JESUSFREAK!
NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY OR WHAT YOU DO.
YOU CANNOT CHANGE THAT.
MORE OF US ARE BECOMING OBEDIENT TO THIS TRUTH EVERYDAY!!!
YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE HEAVEN OR HELL - EVERYONE DOES.
WHAT'S YOUR CHOICE?
SERVE GOD or SERVE the devil.
YOU CAN ONLY SERVE ONE MASTER.
YOU CANNOT HAVE TWO.
SO LAY OFF THE 'HATER'-ADE.
AGAIN...
The BIBLE is TRUTH.
The TRUTH is TRUE whether you believe it or not.
Until you actually READ with the INTENT to CHANGE & GROW --- You will NEVER FULLY EXPERIENCE THE WORD OF GOD AS LIFE SHOULD BE.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 439 total posts 159 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!! -- 155 total posts 140 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 55 total posts 45 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
- 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
- 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 34 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 127 total posts 32 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!! -- 118 total posts 27 posts