Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: HotSnoJ on February 25, 2004, 08:18:55 am
-
WOOHOOO! It's opening day here in ole' willmar MN! I can't wait 'til tonight when I can go see it!!
WOOHOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! W00t^n
-
You do realize that its all in aramaic and you're going to have to read subtitles right?
My wife and I are going to go see it at the budget theatre. 20 pieces of silver is too much. We're going to pay 5. ;)
-
Originally posted by mikhael
You do realize that its all in aramaic and you're going to have to read subtitles right?
My wife and I are going to go see it at the budget theatre. 20 pieces of silver is too much. We're going to pay 5. ;)
who doesn't know it's in all aramaic. it's going to be badass. i'm seeing it right after school today with like 40 other people. 4:00 PM. ;)
-
Originally posted by mikhael
20 pieces of silver is too much. We're going to pay 5. ;)
Get hippin with the times man and start paying with denari!
But seriously, is that how much you have to pay for movies? I heard like in New York they pay like 17 bucks per ticket. That's psycho.
It's getting up to about $8.00 here.
I'm going to see the movie tomorrow btw.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
You do realize that its all in aramaic and you're going to have to read subtitles right?
As opposed to every other movie, that is subtitled from french, russian or english?
pffft, americans.
-
No, I think he was concerned about Hotsnoj's ability to read.
Wouldn't make much sense if you're illiterate.
-
Stu, I'm trying not to be terribly insulting here, but yeah. Most americans don't watch movies with subtitles.
Check your PMs for what I really wanted to say. ;)
-
If there's anyone your insulting, then it's the americans. :p
-
uhm, what did i miss?
i haven;t got a clue which movie this thread is about, really.
-
The Passion of Christ. Its about Jesus Christ. And its directed by Mel Gibson.
Uhm, apparently its pretty hard on the Jews. And there's certain stupid people who are claiming its anti-Semetic but that a load of crap.
Now, I don't pretend to know much about the Bible, but was Jesus not a Jew? The King of Jews actually? And wasn't it the Romans who crucified him? Maybe the film is based on some more in-depth research or something.
-
It's an extended scene of people beating the **** out of Jesus, apparently. I dunno, I figured you spend an entire movie based on tormenting a major religious figure, you get no attendance and mailbombs from the Christian Right.
People are wierd, that's all I gotta say.
-
The weirdest thing I'm finding out about people lately is that it's always the weird ones that make the most sense to me.
-
Everyone in the film gallery looks white... I find this curious.
-
I would've considered that to very worldly view of the ethinicity of Jesus and a scathing criticism of the propaganda put out by the Catholic Church if I didn't know you got the idea from Dogma.
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
Everyone in the film gallery looks white... I find this curious.
I always find it odd that effigies of Jesus are always white when if he lived in and around Jerusalem and was born in the middle east he would have been brown.
-
wasn't this that movie that got struck by lightning a few times?
-
They should do a movie about the tiny few books about Jesus' kiddy-years that the Catholic Church hasn't got around to burning yet.
Apparently when he was a kid and people pissed him off, he used his divine powers to blind them.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
wasn't this that movie that got struck by lightning a few times?
Supposedly.
20 bucks says thats a lie just to hype the damn movie.
-
Sounds about right, but there'll always be someone who believes it.
And an0n, I'm almost honored - Dogma didn't enter my head while writing that post, although I have seen it before so it may have registered subconciously :)
-
You can always tell for certain when someone is using Dogma as the foundation of all their views on religion because they refer to God as a 'she'.
-
I saw Dogma, Mallrats, Chasing Amy and Clerks at HMV the other day for 50 bucks...
Gonna have to pick it up and watch Dogma again....
I still cant believe they had Alanis Morisette play God....
-
Overall I'd say Dogma had the best production and plot, Mallrats had the best 'cause and effect' and comedy, Chasing Amy had the best three-liner jokes and Clerks was just plain odd.
-
i am not the slgithest bit interested in this waste of massive ammounts of time and money
-
Originally posted by Kazan
i am not the slgithest bit interested in this waste of massive ammounts of time and money
Jesus Christ (no pun intended). This never ceases to amaze me. THEN WHY DID YOU POST GENIUS?
-
You do realize that its all in aramaic and you're going to have to read subtitles right?
Yes I'm quite aware of that. Infact I think it's awesome. :D I'm even used to it to an extent because I watch subbed anime from Japan. :p
-
Originally posted by Thorn
Jesus Christ (no pun intended). This never ceases to amaze me. THEN WHY DID YOU POST GENIUS?
because i am interested in this thread - but not the movie and i wished to express my disinterested in the movie
-
This post reminded me of a few quotes over on www.bash.org
http://www.bash.org/?232554 is the first
http://www.bash.org/?234706 is the second
-
Crap, al gore is here, HLP's going to hell.
-
I hope they show the movie here. I know someone who was asked to join a preview of the movie a month back or something. His response to the question "Does it make the Jews look bad?" was: "It makes EVERYONE look bad."
In regards to anti-semetisim, people who want to find it will find it no matter what. Jesus was Jewish, but that doesn't matter to them. He willingly "went as a lamb to the slaughter", and even said "No man takes my life from me, I lay it down". But they ignore that, too.
Personally, I'd be perfectly happy to let the movie speak for itself. Of course I think everyone should go see it and judge for themselves, but I guess that's too much to expect.
Kazan, out of morbid curiosity, why are you interested in a thread about the movie and not in the movie itself?
-
sand: to see your reactions to it - call it a social expiriement
-
Reactions to the movie, not the thread, I assume.
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
WOOHOOO! It's opening day here in ole' willmar MN! I can't wait 'til tonight when I can go see it!!
WOOHOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! W00t^n
No offense but what's funny is I could have sworn it was you who made a post six months or so ago when the movie was first being announced that it was a "evil liberal Hollywood" portrayal, etc. Maybe it was Lib or someone else though. *shrug*
Anyway, I'll wait until it's out on DVD. It looks interesting, but not enough to see it in a theater.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but no-one speaks Aramaic.
It's a dead and lost language.
So what did they do, just have a wild stab at what the spoken language sounded like?
If so, that kinda defeats the point.
-
Some of the original texts of the Bible are in Aramaic, I thought, and there are also written records in the language, so while it is a dead language since no one as a people actually speak it anymore, there are people that still know how the words would sound.
And as for Al Gore being here, I'm not the real Al Gore. He's an idiot.
And you going to hell, well, I guess that's between you and God, I shouldn't have much to sway you one way or the other.
-
an0n: you can figure out how deadlanguages were pronounced - don't ask me how
-
Originally posted by an0n
Correct me if I'm wrong, but no-one speaks Aramaic.
It's a dead and lost language.
So what did they do, just have a wild stab at what the spoken language sounded like?
If so, that kinda defeats the point.
no you dumass...
they did it to try to make the movie as original and true to how it really happened as humanly possible, which is why they didn't want to have some guy with an American accent talking for Jesus.
correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't that obvious?
-
............:wtf:
First of all, never call me a dumbass.
Secondly, if they wanted it to be so true-to-life, why isn't Jesus black?
-
I have a small nagging that this film was meant to capitalize on people's religious followings...
I'll wait until it's on TBS.
-
Well, taking into account the basic skin coloration of people of that area in that era, and excerpts from the Bible, Jesus would have a brown color to his skin (not as dark as peoples native to Africa, but definitely not the pale coloration often depicted in Biblical art), dark brown hair (as opposed to light brown, as is sometimes depicted), and short hair (this is shown by a question by one of the Apostles).
And the nails would have to go through the arm on the opposite site of the wrist from the hand, as it has been proven using cadavers that if the nails are in the hand, they'll just rip right through the flesh.
-
You can put the nail in the wrist where the two fore-arm ones meet.
And I feel I should point out that you're all quite ready to believe in immaculate conception, turning water to wine and him being ressurected from the dead but scoff at the possibility that God could've just decided he wanted a white son.
-
Originally posted by an0n
............:wtf:
First of all, never call me a dumbass.
Secondly, if they wanted it to be so true-to-life, why isn't Jesus black?
you are a dumass, judging from what you said, which displays how uneducated and thick you are.
there's no official record of what race Jesus was, but you can guess by looking at the context (i.e. birthplace, heritage, etc.).
however, since many of the Bible texts were written in Aramaic, (yes, that's a face, go look it up), I guess that would explain why the movie's in Aramaic, and not English :rolleyes:
-
If he was white, it'd be considered abnormal for the region. You think there'd be no mention of that anywhere? And you are right about the wrists, I mainly meant that it couldn't go through the hands, as shown in most depictions. Kind of deals a blow to the cons who claim to have the stigmata, if their holes are in the wrong place.
-
Uh...Stealth....that was my point you small-minded, redneck, little ****head.
There is no Aramaic language. It's all supposition and guess work.......like Dutch.
-
Weren't the only texts found written in Aramaic the Dead Sea Scrolls, with most of the rest being in either Greek or Hebrew?
-
Uh...Stealth....that was my point you small-minded, redneck, little ****head.
There is no Aramaic language. It's all supposition and guess work.......like Dutch.
You don't have a point dumass. your "point" was that no one knows how to speak Aramaic because it's a "dead language". well believe it or not there's quite a few scholars and professors that know how to speak it. Same with Greek, Hebrew, Latin, etc.
-
Y'know what? I don't give a ****.
You just keep being a moron.
And I refuse to be baited into a flame-war by a two-cent lady-boy like you.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Y'know what? I don't give a ****.
You just keep being a moron.
And I refuse to be baited into a flame-war by a two-cent lady-boy like you.
You call me a moron, but you're the one that didn't know that anyone spoke Aramaic, because it's a "dead language". what do you think they did for the entire movie, just make up words and call it aramaic? :rolleyes:
OK dumass, that's good, because i don't want to get into a flame-war by a pansy moron like you
EDIT: "moron" sounded better than "dumass". I don't want to be repetetive
-
Weren't the only texts found written in Aramaic the Dead Sea Scrolls, with most of the rest being in either Greek or Hebrew?
as far as i remember, Aramaic was found in many parts of the Bible, although not as much as Greek or Hebrew. Also remember that the language the text was written in is quite possibly different from the language spoken at the time by the commoners. i'm guessing that's where they got the idea to do the entire movie in Aramaic from
-
Originally posted by Stealth
You call me a moron, but you're the one that didn't know that anyone spoke Aramaic
Just because they assign phonetics to the letters and recite them doesn't mean they speak Aramaic.
It's like if someone claimed to be able to speak english but pronounced all E's as Q's.
And since everyone who knew Aramaic died a few thousand years ago, the pronunciations died along with them, therefore it is a DEAD LANGUAGE.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Just because they assign phonetics to the letters and recite them doesn't mean they speak Aramaic.
It's like if someone claimed to be able to speak english but pronounced all E's as Q's.
And since everyone who knew Aramaic died a few thousand years ago, the pronunciations died along with them, therefore it is a DEAD LANGUAGE.
are you uneducated or just plain stupid? it's hard to tell with you, but since you said you'd be leaving the thread, why don't you go ahead and leave, because i really don't feel like holding a pointless argument with a dumass like you
EDIT: Tell me, what should they have done the movie in? Spanish? French? English? I'm sure it's a lot more effective to try to do it in the common language at the time, even if the absolute pronunciation of words is only guesswork.
-
Could you at least spell your insults right? Please? :blah:
I mean, you don't have to, but it makes the irony that much more painful.
-
It'd make more sense if he read my posts too. I never said I'd leave, only that I'd not be baited into a flame-war.
And English would have been a better choice than using half-assed Aramaic just so they wouldn't have to compete with all the better films at the various Film Festivals and could just clear-up in the Foreign Language Film category.
-
How can it be foreign language if its not native to any nation anymore? They'll have to create a Dead Language Film category or something...
-
*sigh*
Sometimes you children are annoying.
Aramaic is NOT a dead language. Aramaic is still spoken by tribesmen in Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey.
Can you please move on?
-
kthx Mikhael. i rest my case that an0n's a dumass... or "dumbass" as squeak over there would rather me say
-
:wtf: Shut up already. You were both wrong. :p
-
Cool. I read this thread, and then looked at Stealth's ignored posts, and the thread suddenly got 90% dumber. You really should try ignore-listing him, even with the stupid notifications there it improves the quality of the forum so much.
I should point out, though, that Latin's a thoroughly dead language, too, and yet we have a pretty clear idea of how it's spoken, because even though it's dead people have kept reading it and speaking it in order to access information that was written in the language- and since this has been going on constantly since the days when everybody actually used it conversationally, the verbal part has stayed, too. Same with most "dead" languages- the only thing that can make the spoken form of a language completely lost is to basically wipe out the civilization wholesale, and take basically everyone who spoke the language with it (like the Incas, Cretans, etc.).
-
I do. And when my curiosity gets the best of me, I snap the little rubber band around my wrist.
It's sort of like christmas every time I look at the thread, except Santa is a 27 year-old, drunk, Texan, high school dropout who switched all my presents with boxes full of meatloaf and assorted spoiler/wing mount kits for the back of my car.
An unpleasant thing.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Aramaic is NOT a dead language. Aramaic is still spoken by tribesmen in Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey.
I stand partially corrected.
They're still only dialects of the language.
It's like how you'd be hard-pressed to consider Geordie part of the English language.
-
Hey, I like meatloaf.
-
WTF is meatloaf?
That's been pissing me off ever since I started watching Sister Sister.
-
It's like the bastard child of a hamburger and a loaf of bread, with lamb and **** included. Done well, 's good, in a mystery-meat kinda way. Done poorly, it's basically an enormous hamburger.
And why the **** are you watching Sister Sister? Unless there's some non-utter-crap show that also goes by that name, I'm disgusted.
-
Tia is hot.
-
That's hardly excuse enough to put up with what happens every time she opens her mouth.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Tia is hot.
:yes:
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
That's hardly excuse enough to put up with what happens every time she opens her mouth.
;7
-
an0n's got other interests with her mouth
as for meatloaf, i wouldn't do a google image search if i were you
-
naaa, i really don't think i was wrong. i never argued that Aramaic was a dead language; i said that people (while few) still speak it. an0n on the other hand:
There is no Aramaic language. It's all supposition and guess work.......like Dutch.
And since everyone who knew Aramaic died a few thousand years ago, the pronunciations died along with them, therefore it is a DEAD LANGUAGE.
unknowingly (i assume, since i'm supposdly on your ignore list Stryke) you agreed with me, when you said I should point out, though, that Latin's a thoroughly dead language, too, and yet we have a pretty clear idea of how it's spoken, because even though it's dead people have kept reading it and speaking it in order to access information that was written in the language- and since this has been going on constantly since the days when everybody actually used it conversationally, the verbal part has stayed, too. Same with most "dead" languages- the only thing that can make the spoken form of a language completely lost is to basically wipe out the civilization wholesale, and take basically everyone who spoke the language with it (like the Incas, Cretans, etc.).
that was my point, that people still know how to speak Aramaic today. therefore argue it as you will, but i am right... and i direct that at teh Orgy: Stryke, squeak, and dumass
-
..........I'll put in terms you can understand: People in Egypt speak Egyptian (I assume). But that doesn't mean they can read heiroglyphics out loud.
-
you're as bad as squeak.
the point is... well... look at my last post, and you'll get it. learn to admit when you're wrong. it's not that hard dumass
-
Yet the ability continues to evade you.
-
Originally posted by an0n
First of all, never call me a dumbass.
ACTUALLY........ unless your brain is in your ass, then you have, in fact, a dumb ass. ;)
.....yeah, ok, so that was lame. I just woke up.
Originally posted by an0n
Secondly, if they wanted it to be so true-to-life, why isn't Jesus black?
Don't know about that one, but he (the actor) is Jewish at least. :p
Originally posted by Solatar
I have a small nagging that this film was meant to capitalize on people's religious followings...
Capitalize? The film wasn't mean to capitalize on anything.
RE: Dead Languages - Hebrew was a dead language, kept alive only in traditional blessings and the like. But now it's a fully-revitalized one. Nyah!
And an0n and Stealth - you both really REALLY need to stop speaking to each other, like, NOW.
-
No offense but what's funny is I could have sworn it was you who made a post six months or so ago when the movie was first being announced that it was a "evil liberal Hollywood" portrayal, etc. Maybe it was Lib or someone else though. *shrug*
Maybe, but back then I may have not know about Gibsen's recent "change of heart" so to speak.
But yeah, I really liked the movie. Really thought provoking. So if you haven't seen it, go. If you are gonna see it, you'll be amazed. If you weren't going, you should.
AS for the charge of being anti-semitic, buncha bull.
A) If you know the story you know that Jesus had to die in the first place.
B) since you know He had to die, you can't get mad at the "killers" since someone had to do it.
C) if you still haven't seen it or seen it and still call it anti-semitic you're just plain crazy. (like an0n)
-
Well, I'm probably going to see it, but I might wait till its on DVD... so I can skip past the really gory parts. I mean, I appreciate the reasons why they're there, I just don't want to watch them. :)
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Well, taking into account the basic skin coloration of people of that area in that era, and excerpts from the Bible, Jesus would have a brown color to his skin (not as dark as peoples native to Africa, but definitely not the pale coloration often depicted in Biblical art), dark brown hair (as opposed to light brown, as is sometimes depicted), and short hair (this is shown by a question by one of the Apostles).
Joseph and Mary went from place to place trying to get place to stay and even though Mary was heavily pregnant no one ever let them in until finally someone said they can sleep in the stables with the animals. You want to argue that they weren't black? :lol:
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Well, I'm probably going to see it, but I might wait till its on DVD... so I can skip past the really gory parts. I mean, I appreciate the reasons why they're there, I just don't want to watch them. :)
Bah... Brutally realistic is different than gory just for the sake of it.
-
Yeah, except that the reason Jesus is at all significant isn't that he got tortured in really nasty ways. I'm not sure whether this is "missing the point" or it goes all the way into "being sadistic under the guise of piousness".
-
Useful controversy. Get's the bible bashers all riled up at the criticism so they block book seats in a show of support.
-
*is seeing tommarrow night with his parents church
*all seats in the theatre are bought out by said church
Oh boy.
-
Lucky you.
-
What scares me the most is that I'm sure there'll be "fellowship" (read: trying to recruit me into Wednesday night youth group) before and afterward.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
What scares me the most is that I'm sure there'll be "fellowship" (read: trying to recruit me into Wednesday night youth group) before and afterward.
Put a pentagram on a chain and wear it around your neck.
-
I'd have a hard time explaining that to my parents, no matter how appealing.
-
parents dont allow you to have your own beleifs?
-
Put a Star of David pendant on and call everyone who tries to speak to you "Buboula".
Then walk around muttering how you "like films where they get the bad-guy at the end".
-
Originally posted by Thorn
parents dont allow you to have your own beleifs?
Not if they embarass them, apparently.
an0n: Now that might work better.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
What scares me the most is that I'm sure there'll be "fellowship" (read: trying to recruit me into Wednesday night youth group) before and afterward.
hahahahah
yeah or just yell out "HELL YEAH" every few minutes during the movie. that would result in either everyone avoiding you, or your parents forcing you to join the Wednesday night youth group...
-
Or, KT, if you really don't want to attend, just say so.
If the fellowship bits are what are putting you off, show up late, sit on the end of a row and leave when the credits roll. You don't have to be rude or confrontational dick like some people are suggesting.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Bah... Brutally realistic is different than gory just for the sake of it.
And notice that I realise the Passion's violence is the former, not the latter. That doesn't change the fact that I still don't want to watch it - it's because it's brutally realistic that I appreciate it, and abhor it (like we all should). I think Gibson had guts to include the realism there, but I still don't want to see that. Sorry. :)
-
i know a lot of people that aren't seeing it for that very reason Setekh. it's nothing to be ashamed of.
-
Cheers. On the topic, I'm a bit interested about the embellishments Gibson has allegedly put in which have little basis in any text, canonical or not - like, his creative licence on the casting out of demons and the spiritual battle that goes on. Has anyone seen it? I'm curious as to what is actually shown in scenes like that.
-
I saw it tonight, and I didn't think it was too overtly gory. I'm not saying that it wasn't, I'm just saying that's probably what would have happened. The closest thing I can relate it to is the gore in the movies Event Horizon and Final Destination 2. Gory, but not so much that it made me want to leave. Lot's of blood though.
And as for the creative license that Setekh mentioned, almost all of it was used in relation to Satan. So pretty much if you saw Satan on screen, you saw something that wasn't recorded.
I heard someone say something about the Simon of Cyrene part wasn't completely true either, but whatever.
-
Satan on screen? Well, I suppose there's the part where he 'entered Judas', but I really ought to watch it so I can know what/how it's actually portrayed.
What happened with Simon of C?
-
Seen it. And what can I say, but wow. :eek2::yes: Good, heavy, thought-provoking stuff there.
The extra stuff Gibson put in fell mainly into two categories: Satan hanging around nearby looking menacing, and Jesus's friends and family following him looking concerned. The former makes sense from a spiritual standpoint but isn't so prevalent that it takes attention away from the main story. The latter seems to be a valid extrapolation of what probably did happen but was only briefly mentioned in the Gospel accounts.
As for Simon, he has a few lines of dialogue along the lines of protesting the treatment of Jesus or offering him encouragement.
-
Cool. I do actually want to see it quite a lot - I wonder how many months it'll take for the DVD to come out. How long is it, btw?
-
Two hours, five minutes.
And Setekh, I really wouldn't recommend skipping through any of it. Avert your eyes if you must, but remember that Jesus couldn't skip through it. ;) I think it's worth a little discomfort to appreciate the magnitude of what he had to go through.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Or, KT, if you really don't want to attend, just say so.
If the fellowship bits are what are putting you off, show up late, sit on the end of a row and leave when the credits roll. You don't have to be rude or confrontational dick like some people are suggesting.
- I do sort of want to see the movie so yeah. But they'd make me go anyway. They beleive "children should repsect their parents' religon while they live under their roof" which translates to "I have to go with them because my mom wants me there (and at church) because it only feels good to her if we're there as a family."
- It's hard to show up late and sit somewhere else when they are my ride and association with the place. Although I know entirely what you mean, and usually by sticking to myself, I'm fine. It's the assholes who repeatedly badger me every week about the same BS and make part of the mission to see me out and try to sway me into this or that function that piss me off.
Setekh: You need to come stay in America for a while. We'll get you desensitized to violence right proper n' quick. :)
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Two hours, five minutes.
And Setekh, I really wouldn't recommend skipping through any of it. Avert your eyes if you must, but remember that Jesus couldn't skip through it. ;) I think it's worth a little discomfort to appreciate the magnitude of what he had to go through.
Not too long, then. Thanks for the advice, Goob - but I'm still not sure. It's not like I have to exactly watch it to appreciate its magnitude (something I set about thinking through many a year ago), and now that I think about, I think it's because I already appreciate the magnitude that I don't want to watch it. Besides that, I don't think the real magnitude of his suffering can be seen by looking at him - the real suffering was invisible. But I digress. ;)
Yeah, KT... I'm still wondering whether or not that's a good thing. ;)
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
- I do sort of want to see the movie so yeah. But they'd make me go anyway. They beleive "children should repsect their parents' religon while they live under their roof" which translates to "I have to go with them because my mom wants me there (and at church) because it only feels good to her if we're there as a family."
Well number 1, kids are like gardens. If you don't take care of them they go bad.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
- It's hard to show up late and sit somewhere else when they are my ride and association with the place. Although I know entirely what you mean, and usually by sticking to myself, I'm fine. It's the assholes who repeatedly badger me every week about the same BS and make part of the mission to see me out and try to sway me into this or that function that piss me off.
If you're talking about the "everyone should be doing missions stuff" I wholehearted agree. It ticks me off too.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Setekh: You need to come stay in America for a while. We'll get you desensitized to violence right proper n' quick. :)
Come to Minnesota!!! WE got snow here half the year!! :lol:
-
Originally posted by Setekh
It's not like I have to exactly watch it to appreciate its magnitude (something I set about thinking through many a year ago), and now that I think about, I think it's because I already appreciate the magnitude that I don't want to watch it.
You know, that could be a quote from the conversation I had with my mom over dinner tonight when the subject came up. ;)
-
Mike, this separated-at-birth thing is getting kinda creepy. :D
-
You're tellin me!
-
Well saw it, and avoided the church masses for the most part. Poweful good movie. :yes:
-
*looks around and steps in*
I just want to say this. I went and saw the Passion a few days ago with a group of friends from my church (about nearly 20+ of them ;) ). The drama started immediately, and it was a good thing a few of us brought tissue packs--most of the girls and several of the guys (myself included) ended up crying halfway through.
What we all realized later as we left the movie was that this wasn't a tragedy, an "Oh, so sad that Jesus died 2000 years ago"-style event. It was exactly opposite; it was a victory. I think they ended the movie just perfectly (I won't spoil it for those who haven't seen it).
Plus, if you like the movie, the book's even better ;)
-
Originally posted by nuclear1
Plus, if you like the movie, the book's even better ;)
:wtf: I hope that's a pun/joke.
-
i'm sure it is
-
Well, I've heard that the movie actually misses a lot of the emphases that the gospel writers originally intended. I would definitely suggest reading the gospel accounts of the passion of Christ if you see the movie - if only to see the excellent writing that is the basis of the film.
-
Originally posted by nuclear1
I just want to say this. I went and saw the Passion a few days ago with a group of friends from my church (about nearly 20+ of them ;) ). The drama started immediately, and it was a good thing a few of us brought tissue packs--most of the girls and several of the guys (myself included) ended up crying halfway through.
Yeah, my wife and I will probably be like that when we go see it. You should see me during the stations of the Cross on Good Friday. I still have my nails from last year. I expect the movie, with the visual depictions, will be far rougher.
-
Agreed. Turns out I will probably seeing this on the big screen after all, next Thursday. I'm gonna bring a pillow to hide behind, perhaps... :nervous:
-
Setekh, it's not that bad. I was quite supprised, I had thought it was going to be worse then it is.
There are a couple jump scene's, but all in all, it's pretty standard torture. Like my dad said, it's not the physical stuff that'll get to you it's the emotional stuff.
-
I think that's the way it should be. I think I'd better bring a box of tissues. :yes:
-
Well, I guess I'm gonna have to see it now too...
Though, anything that includes Mel Gibson is usually top notch.
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
it's pretty standard torture.
:lol:
-
Originally posted by nuclear1
most of the girls and several of the guys (myself included) ended up crying halfway through.
:wtf: :rolleyes: :eek2: :no:
Die dummearschen wird immer dummer, und das Welt weint immer mehr.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
:wtf: :rolleyes: :eek2: :no:
Die dummearschen wird immer dummer, und das Welt weint immer mehr.
Have you seen the movie?
No, let me rephrase that. If you haven't seen the movie, shut up.
It's one thing to criticise a movie - even one you haven't seen - based upon reviews and such. But to criticise the reaction of someone who did see the movie is sheer audacity, and shows just how open-minded your vaunted brain really isn't.
-
Dude, Kaz. That was out of line. Way out of line.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
But to criticise the reaction of someone who did see the movie is sheer audacity, and shows just how open-minded your vaunted brain really isn't.
So you're saying you've never uttered the words "Dude, what were you smoking? Gigli ****en sucked"?
-
thank you an0n
to start crying because someone is getting tortured in the movie..... silly
i guess i should hold my tongue this week because i don't have the patience to be polite to the religiously insane
-
'Religiously insane' is redundant. It's like saying someone is 'lardily obese'.
-
an0n: redundant for us yes - unfortunately not everyone realizes the "faith" is by definition a fallacy
-
Hold on a minute!
I realise this's probably already been mentioned in the thread, but if people were crying then the film (or at least they) have completely and utterly missed the point of Jesus dying.
If anything they should be crying at how horrifically the film has perverted one of the supposedly greatest gestures of love and hope ever to have happened.
-
*smiles*
-
Maybe they were from one of the many religions that dont recognise Jesus as the son of god and were crying because the poor deluded fella was getting sliced and diced for nothing
-
hey! it was an act of love and SACRIFICE, which involves giving something, namely life. it's painful. it was necessary, and it was painful. just because it was also loving doesn't mean it wasn't painful.
-
Gank: hehehe :D
icespeed: you missed the point of what we're saying and why we're saying it
-
*sigh*
Some people just don't get it...
an0n, people were crying because this movie put the death of Jesus and his sacrifice in a way that noone or anything has depicted it in the past. The past movies about Jesus depicted the story as mostly his teachings, then about fifteen minutes of death.
This one, however, was different. Showing the blood and scars that he was being "tortured" with put things in a different perspective, and to think that he took all of that for unworthy people like me is very powerful. In other words, Gestalt auf, Kazan, oder schließt auf.
-
Yeah, but considering he had the divine powerage and could instantly heal himself, showing him with all the blood and scars portrays him as something of an attention whore and a drama queen. Or, if you're inclined to think that way, that he was a complete liar.
-
Originally posted by icespeed
hey! it was an act of love and SACRIFICE, which involves giving something, namely life. it's painful. it was necessary, and it was painful. just because it was also loving doesn't mean it wasn't painful.
Any moron can get beaten, tortured and killed by the Romans. Hell, they used to crucify dozens of people every day. But to NOT get beaten and tortured means you've not been broken, that you've still go something to live for and that STILL letting them kill you is all the more potent.
Any moron can accept death when they know they're gonna die, but only the really cool ones can accept death when they're in perfect health and could still live a long, productive life.
-
Or that he surrendered his "divine powerage" to become a man, take the beating, be abandoned by God, and defeat death. The only reason he is turning into an "attention whore" or "drama queen" is by people like you who put the spotlight on what faults you can try to find in him.
It's the greatest act of love and sacrifice that anyone has ever made. And at that... meh, forget it. I'm going to go take a nap...
-
babelfish diese antwort
Schließ deine mund. Ich verstehe, warum die weinen. Aber Ich meine es ist dumm, darum zu weinen. Es brauch eines mensch unlogisch (religious) zu sein.
-
IF HE WAS REALLY THE SON OF GOD, HE WOULDN'T HAVE ANY FAULTS!
Unless you're willing to accept that either God can be wrong or that your assesment of God is wrong.
-
HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY BLOODY FAULTS! THAT'S THE WHOLE BLOODY POINT![/I]
-
Being an attention whore would seem to be a fault.
-
Eh? Where was that? If you're referring to my earlier comment, that was off of your post as well.
Anyone notice how I oughta just leave now?
-
Normally I'd want you to stay so I could grind your feeble pro-Jesus reasoning into the ground like the face of a 2-bit hooker, but I need a shower, so.......
-
an0n: just because he didn't immediately heal himself doesn't mean he didn't want to. But it was necessary to go through with it to accomplish his purpose of suffering in our place. He loved us so much he bore the full brunt of our punishment vicariously. That's the whole point.
-
So you're telling me that the all-powerful divine spirit went to all the trouble of reorganising matter and energy on a scale never before seen, to concieve a child with magic powers just so 32 years later he could completely recant all the previous laws of God and eventually be nailed to a big piece of wood along-side murderers and rapists; All so that a bunch of rednecks and hill-billies wouldn't have to offer up a goat as a sacrifice to God every time they went and ****ed their daughter?
Do you have any idea how stupid the entire concept is?
My personal bias aside, why would a being of infinite power go to all the trouble just so he could make a token gesture to the people of Earth?
He's God, for **** sake. He could have just rained fire down on them till they listened. Hell, he could even just forgive them once they got up to the Gates of Heaven.
Doesn't it at all strike you as odd?
-
It does indeed. :nod: 'Tis the great mystery of God's love for us. :)
-
Even God has to obey the very simple concept of HAVING A REASON.
-
He doesn't actually; anyone can do something without a reason. But in this case, his reason was love. He didn't want us to go through with the punishment, but his own law demanded that the punishment be carried out. So he carried it out on himself.
-
No, Jesus was the one all about love. God was all about "Seek thee not a homosexual friend or I shalt smite thine loins with fire".
But seriously, why would God go to all the bother when he could just spend 20 minutes with a pretty light-show?
And, yes, God DOES need a reason.
-
Punishment for what?
-
Also, if the point of Jesus dying was to take away all our sins, wouldn't bringing him back reverse it all.
And how in the name of **** can you consider it an act of love when he KNEW he was going to be ressurected and taken up to Heaven.
It's like saying to someone "I'm going to stamp on your foot, then give you a bar of Gold". Where's the self-sacrifice in that?
-
Originally posted by an0n
No, Jesus was the one all about love. God was all about "Seek thee not a homosexual friend or I shalt smite thine loins with fire".
But seriously, why would God go to all the bother when he could just spend 20 minutes with a pretty light-show?
The persons of the Godhead share the same attributes. They all have love, and they all have judgement. Jesus was all about love when he came 2000 years ago, but next time he comes he's going to be all about judgment.
What do you mean about the light show, specifically? Sending everyone to hell and not bothering? Then everyone would be in hell, deservedly so, but God knows we wouldn't like it very much. So he offered us a way out.
-
Originally posted by an0n
No, Jesus was the one all about love. God was all about "Seek thee not a homosexual friend or I shalt smite thine loins with fire".
But seriously, why would God go to all the bother when he could just spend 20 minutes with a pretty light-show?
And, yes, God DOES need a reason.
Maybe God just has a really sick sense of humor.
-
Umm, what exactly is humanity doing since christs death that it hasnt been doing before?
-
Originally posted by an0n
Also, if the point of Jesus dying was to take away all our sins, wouldn't bringing him back reverse it all.
No... dying takes away the sin, resurrecting brings eternal life.And how in the name of **** can you consider it an act of love when he KNEW he was going to be ressurected and taken up to Heaven.
It's like saying to someone "I'm going to stamp on your foot, then give you a bar of Gold". Where's the self-sacrifice in that?
It's sacrifice all the same. A small one, in your example, but still a sacrifice.
Take winning at the Olympics as an example. You have to suffer through all the training, but you get a medal for your efforts. And after the medal, there's no need for any more training.
-
i would just like to point out an0n's arguement is devoid of any real effectiveness
-
Originally posted by Gank
Umm, what exactly is humanity doing since christs death that it hasnt been doing before?
Well, we've built guns now.
Er....
****.
-
Probably invented by a christian too.
Perhaps a better way of asking that would be what exactly did we stop doing when christ died. I.e. why was he offering us a way out of whatever he was doing to us.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
i would just like to point out an0n's arguement is devoid of any real effectiveness
But notice how they feverently oppose it anyway because it looks like it's directed against them.
-
Good point, an0n. It could also be that the reaction is a mere defense of what is dear to them, less related to your ineffective argument and more to their own certainties. I know I can relate to that.
Btw, Kaz, for the sake of it, I'm interested in your definition of faith, which you say is a fallacy. Explain for me?
-
Setekh allow me to quote the dictionary
faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
[i]...[/i]
as of late faith is almost excusively used is meaning 2 even when the person (ie a christian) is intends meaning 1
-
Faith is a wholy stupid concept anyway.
-
Mmmm, agreed. I'm not sure that's sufficient grounds to plainly state that it's a fallacy, though. Plenty of people have faith based on credible evidence in religious matters (including many Christians, though I'll grant you that there are many who don't). The mounting archaeological claims that back up the historiographical claim that the four gospels were factual accounts, for example. Despite the misconceptions, I don't think you can justly call 'faith' as a general fallacy.
Originally posted by an0n
Faith is a wholy stupid concept anyway.
And your qualification for that, sir?
-
there is no "credible evidence" for religious matters
the fact that the gospels had _some_ historical accuracy doesn't mean every thing they say is the truth (see: historical finction genre)
-
I don't think religion is completely separate from history (especially Christianity), and so credible historical evidence is quite important. I see where you're coming from, though.
Well, I wouldn't expect them to be verbatim recordings of what occurred - such accounts never existed in ancient times in the form we have these days. I do think it's quite interesting, though, that many people will dispute historical accuracy based upon the differences between the gospels (particularly the three that are very similar, Matthew, Mark & Luke). They differ about 10-40% on matters of quotes (notably, Greek has no punctuation for quote marks - word-for-word recording was evidently of lesser importance than capturing the essence of someone's message) and orders of events, which is exactly the amount that people in ancient times saw as the standard for stories passed on by oral tradition. If they were exactly the same, cut-and-dried, I would have been more suspicious that the writers had met up beforehand and conspired to decide on a version of events that each would write about to make sure there were no inconsistencies.
-
I still think the Bible is just the prequel to LOTR.
It's got Giants, Wizards, Witches, Dwarves...........
-
rather, lotr was a reflection of the bible...
-
Kaz, this is gonna sound like a stupid question, but what happened to you in the past that had caused you to dislike Christians so fervently?
Also, for the record, most good Christians mean both definitions when they say Faith.
-
Originally posted by icespeed
rather, lotr was a reflection of the bible...
At least, of Biblical imagery and concepts. Tolkien quite plainly stated that his universe was not meant to reflect reality in any way, especially allegorically. But agreed, there are too many Biblical elements in LOTR to be coincidental.
-
Partly because a significant part of the Bible was derived from the same folktales and mythos as LOTR is based off of. History's full of wars and magical freaks, particularly oral history.
-
well, see, that depends on what you think the sources were... I think the Bible was actually the source of a lot of those tales and myths and things... not in its present form, of course, but in the form of stories and oral tradition and all that circulating around... Which then got twisted and turned until they bear less resemblance to Biblical tales...
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Kaz, this is gonna sound like a stupid question, but what happened to you in the past that had caused you to dislike Christians so fervently?
It's not too stupid of a question - but it does assume that it has done something ill against me, though I won't refute it having done ill against me because it has. This is not my reason for disliking christianity
I dislike ALL religion, ALL supernaturalism, ALL superstition, et cetera
Any belief without a base in logic and evidence is repugnant especially when raised to the status of religion. When that belief is to descriminate it passes the line from repugnancy to reprehenisbility
Originally posted by Liberator
Also, for the record, most good Christians mean both definitions when they say Faith.
I'll agree with that statement
-
Originally posted by icespeed
well, see, that depends on what you think the sources were... I think the Bible was actually the source of a lot of those tales and myths and things... not in its present form, of course, but in the form of stories and oral tradition and all that circulating around... Which then got twisted and turned until they bear less resemblance to Biblical tales...
I'd buy that, icespeed, except that some of the mythology that Tolkien was using was pre-christian in origin, not post-christian. Besides, anthropologically, can trace a lot of the bible back to Babylonian and Sumerian oral (written in the case of babylonian) traditions. One of the fascinating things about the devolpment of christianity is how it absorbed mythologies from other cultures (not was absorbed by those cultures).
-
just because something isn't written down doesn't mean it doesn't predate something else that was written down.
does that make sense?
-
icespeed: oral tradition is laced with legendinization
-
Not really. I assume you're referring to the time the Bible spent as a series of oral traditions. Which are, indeed, inherited from the Sumerians and so on. Which, if anything, lends credence to the idea that the Bible is historically accurate to some degree.
-
shrugs
im not an expert and if i try to say anything kazan will immediately jump on it for not having citations and references and all that, so... i won't.
-
The point I was trying to make and that you've all completely missed is that the Bible is a load of ****. It's a fairytale. It's the rambling of the bunch of Trekkies who hadn't yet encountered sci-fi so latched onto the entertaining shinanegins of the fictional son of a fictional God.
The entire Bible is just once long series of Star Wars books.
It's Honorverse.
It's a ton of books set around a similar original theme and designed to get across the very turbulent life of the fictional son of God. It's one huge ****ing collection of Easops Fables.
-
Originally posted by an0n
And, yes, God DOES need a reason.
No, an0n... it seems to me that you need a reason. You simply cannot accept that GOD, the Being who created all of reality, loves YOU.
-
so God doesn't need a reason?
I thought he had a plan of some sort,
...that he won't tell anyone about...
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
No, an0n... it seems to me that you need a reason. You simply cannot accept that GOD, the Being who created all of reality, loves YOU.
You're slipping perilously close to the edge of preaching, Sandwich.
-
...and an0n gives a perfect example of how arrogant and self-righteous athiests can get. I'm an athiest myself though, but I don't go around insulting everyone's beliefs. There's nothing wrong with intensely despising religion, but to be so openly abusive about it is, in my opinion, simply wrong.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Not really. I assume you're referring to the time the Bible spent as a series of oral traditions. Which are, indeed, inherited from the Sumerians and so on. Which, if anything, lends credence to the idea that the Bible is historically accurate to some degree.
...which I was just about to say. The legendisation would never have gotten very far even for those who really wanted to change the story about who Jesus was, because there were still eyewitnesses alive who would have disputed the story being told - "it wasn't like that, I was there, this is what happened". And before the eyewitness generation was gone, most of the New Testament had already been written.
I think I'll also nip in the bud the objection that parts of the New Testament (namely, the synoptic gospels) were written much later on and then attributed to more famous names. This misses the fact that it would have been quite foolish to attribute the gospels to characters like Matthew, Mark and Luke. Matthew, a tax-collector, the most infamous of the apostles after Judas Iscariot; Mark and Luke, who were not even apostles. The facts point to them being factual accounts carried on from the oral tradition of eyewitnesses, about which there was no question of whom the authors were.
-
Originally posted by Ransom Arceihn
...and an0n gives a perfect example of how arrogant and self-righteous athiests can get. I'm an athiest myself though, but I don't go around insulting everyone's beliefs. There's nothing wrong with intensely despising religion, but to be so openly abusive about it is, in my opinion, simply wrong.
"the only we cannot tolerate, is intolerance itself"
(I think that's a quote.....sounds familiar enought to be one)
-
So I'm not allowed to say you're wrong because you don't think you are yet can't prove you aren't?
What kinda ****ed-up reasoning is that?
It's thinking like that that lead to the Dark Ages.
-
For those who are interested, The Passion of the Christ has made $125 million in the first week. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=638&e=2&u=/nm/20040302/en_nm/film_boxoffice_dc)
-
Setekh your logic for trying to say they are factual accounts are dubious at most - and the first undubiously dated paprys dates to the third century CE
==============
What is it with some of you people thinking "tolerance" includes respecting an opinion - no you must only respect their right to have an opinion - you do not have to respect the opinion. There are more invalid BS opinions floating aroud the world then there are justifiable, logical opinions.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
For those who are interested, The Passion of the Christ has made $125 million in the first week. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=638&e=2&u=/nm/20040302/en_nm/film_boxoffice_dc)
Does that mean a sequel is being made, then? Or an exclusive line of toys?
-
ol·er·ance ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tlr-ns)
n.
[b]
1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.[/b]
2.
1. Leeway for variation from a standard.
2. The permissible deviation from a specified value of a structural dimension, often expressed as a percent.
3. The capacity to endure hardship or pain.
4. Medicine.
1. Physiological resistance to a poison.
2. The capacity to absorb a drug continuously or in large doses without adverse effect; diminution in the response to a drug after prolonged use.
5.
1. Acceptance of a tissue graft or transplant without immunological rejection.
2. Unresponsiveness to an antigen that normally produces an immunological reaction.
6. The ability of an organism to resist or survive infection by a parasitic or pathogenic organism.
-
6. The ability of an organism to resist or survive infection by a parasitic or pathogenic organism.
-
http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2004%20opinions/March/1%20o/Mel%20Gibson%20and%20Anti-Christism%20By%20John%20Anast.htm
Veeerryyy interesting.
-
not really, Zionists running the world from the shadows, old news really.
Found this more interesting:
http://www.aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2004%20News%20archives/March/3n/Al-Qaeda%20Letter%20Denies%20Role%20in%20Iraq%20Blasts.htm
-
Hmm, I just had a pretty wierd thought. Christ is in many ways very similar to Tyler Durden.
He shows up, gets people to believe in him and think he's going to change the world, then dies a martyr. Both were rebels and preached ideas which were going against the current Establishment. After dieing, Christ comes back to life, and at the end of Fight Club, its hinted that Tyler might make a return.
...oh dear, now I've gone an done it.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
end of Fight Club, its hinted that Tyler might make a return.
?
I don't remember the film hinting it, never read the book tho.
-
Yeah, the book ending is different. Or rather, the movie one is.
--SPOILER--
In the book, Jack (actually, its Joe, but whatever) also shoots himself and lives. However, nothing explodes because Tyler used the wrong stuff (paraffin) to make the explosives. After shooting himself, Jack says he goes to Heaven, but the way he described it, its pretty obvious that he's in a mental asylum.
And then at the very, very end, you've got some punched out guys who work as janitors and stuff in "Heaven" and they say "its all going according to plan, we're looking forward to getting you back sir"
-
Man, I need that book. Chuck Pahlunik is awesome. :)
-
Well I just saw it, and thought it was pretty good. Here's my biggest thing about it. If human beings can drag themselves so low to commt those acts to another human being, we really need to rethink the way we are doing things. The stuff they did to Jesus was just plain wrong, tearing off chunk after chunk of his skin with glass bits, a crown of thorns, and finally nailing him upon a cross. It just plain made me sick after seeing him dragged off with every single inch of his body having a gash caused by a whip. It just made my jaw drop.
-
Forget that, if watching people do that to other people qualifies as entertainment of any sort, never mind major-movie material, there's something seriously ****ed with society.
-
Oh and I'd like to point out that God DOES need a reason for everything he does and does not do.
Otherwise we have a being of infinite power, intelligence and knowledge operating on a principle of total chaos. If this were true the universe wouldn't be here.
So either God inflicts/allows every act of suffering and pain because he wants to, or he simply doesn't exist.
And if it's the first, then I wouldn't want to live in an afterlife run by such a complete ****-up.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Setekh your logic for trying to say they are factual accounts are dubious at most - and the first undubiously dated paprys dates to the third century CE
Okay, now I'd definitely like to wave the flag on this one. How close have you look at the evidence for this one? Or are you taking others' words on faith? Because my own investigation of this has led me to quite a different conclusion. Where are your facts from on this one?
-
I am taking Dr Hector Avalos (professor in religious studies) words on evidence
there are a lot of webpages that quote the dubiously dated papryses that supposted predate it (p51 i think is it's assigned identifier) and don't bother to mention the dating is dubious on the earlier ones
-
This rather amused me: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14498
Apparently, the composer for the film thought Satan possesed his computer. Why? I'm not quite sure, but I'm thinking that LSD or some other hallucinogen is a distinct possibility.
-
Doctor of Religious Studies huh?
Is that anything like Women's Studies where they have lesbian sex all the time?
-
Yes. You should try taking the course sometime, those priests are pretty limber.
-
Women's Studies eh? Where do I sign up?
-
i wouldn't try. chances are they are those butch-types who want to cut your balls off
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Is that anything like Women's Studies where they have lesbian sex all the time?
You know, there's no need to flaunt your ignorance.
-
Well, not need as such. More of a strong desire.
-
mmmmmm lesbian sex.....
Thank God for lesbian sex.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
I am taking Dr Hector Avalos (professor in religious studies) words on evidence
there are a lot of webpages that quote the dubiously dated papryses that supposted predate it (p51 i think is it's assigned identifier) and don't bother to mention the dating is dubious on the earlier ones
What kind of evidence? You've seen it yourself? Or you're trusting that he's accurately and truthfully recorded his evidence?
Oh, I don't count webpages for much. I'm talking books. I have a big bookshelf on the topic, but museums are far better (like the exhibits on the Dead Sea Scrolls they held in Sydney just a few months ago).
-
Originally posted by an0n
So either God inflicts/allows every act of suffering and pain because he wants to, or he simply doesn't exist.
And if it's the first, then I wouldn't want to live in an afterlife run by such a complete ****-up.
If it's the first, I wouldn't either.
But God allowing suffering and pain does not mean he wants it to happen. Remember, he respects our free will above his ability to force our paths.
-
Which begs the question: Why?
Why would a being of infinite power give a **** about the right of a few measly little insects to choose what they do.
And I should also point out that on both microscopic and macroscopic scales, free-will contradicts all natural laws and more importantly, it drectly opposes the principle of cause and effect.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Which begs the question: Why?
Why would a being of infinite power give a **** about the right of a few measly little insects to choose what they do.
Why would one care what we did in the first place? I mean, it takes less effort to say "rights kids, now bugger off and make your entertainment while i have a cup o' team".
-
This is pretty much headed towards a discussion regarding to Problem of Evil as I see it.
And anon, how does free will contradict cause and effect? Free will consists only of choosing one of the option that re available to you. Nowhere is it implied that in order to achieve the status of "real" free will, you must have no outside, uncontrollable condititons in play.
Right now, I have almost infinite choice as to what I'm going to do. Ditto for the next second, and the next and so forth. However, if 10 years ago, someone ran me over with a car, I would no longer have free will right now, cause I'de be dead. But external conditions can never be eliminated completely, so they are part and parcel of free will.
-
"cup o' team"? You're into those wet'n'sticky sorts of videos aren't you, Aldo? ;)
-
Originally posted by Rictor
This is pretty much headed towards a discussion regarding to Problem of Evil as I see it.
And anon, how does free will contradict cause and effect? Free will consists only of choosing one of the option that re available to you. Nowhere is it implied that in order to achieve the status of "real" free will, you must have no outside, uncontrollable condititons in play.
Right now, I have almost infinite choice as to what I'm going to do. Ditto for the next second, and the next and so forth. However, if 10 years ago, someone ran me over with a car, I would no longer have free will right now, cause I'de be dead. But external conditions can never be eliminated completely, so they are part and parcel of free will.
That's entirely and completely my point.
No matter what you think or do, it's all the result of outside influences.
You have no more 'free will' than a calculator does when you punch in some numbers and get it to add them.
-
Well, that depends on your definiotion. No, pure 100% free will does not exist.
However, the free will to choose among the options that are open to you, thats possible and that exists. Thats my definition, since the previous one is impossible to achieve.
-
.........No.
Your response to any given choice of action(s) is dependant upon your past experiences. Therefore your past experiences are eliminating your free will.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
"cup o' team"? You're into those wet'n'sticky sorts of videos aren't you, Aldo? ;)
Er.... you've lost me completely.
I'm slightly worried what you've been watching on t'elly, now :nervous:
-
I'm still not quite sure how omniscience and free will are supposed to go together. If God knows everything that has been, is, and will be, how can we make a choice? And if we can make choices, doesn't that void the concept of an omniscient God?
-
well, seeing the future and acting on it are two different things
You can see that a man is about to be run over by a car, but do nothing to interefere, leaving the situtation up to his own free will.
-
But if he knows that the man is going to be run over, then how could the man's free will change what is already predetermined?
-
Well, assuming there is any such entity that is both sentient and capable of looking into the future, said entity would most likely not see THE outcome, becuase there is no ONE outcome. Think of it as a tree. You've got branches shooting off from every branch before, off into infinity.
Ofcourse, for humans, the number of braches spreading from the previous one would be some very large number.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
If God knows everything that has been, is, and will be, how can we make a choice? And if we can make choices, doesn't that void the concept of an omniscient God?
No, you see God exists in all places and at all times simoultaneously. Time doesn't mean the same to him as it does to us.
-
Rictor: That makes sense, thanks.
Liberator: You know that wouldn't really apply, right?
-
Originally posted by an0n
Which begs the question: Why?
Why would a being of infinite power give a **** about the right of a few measly little insects to choose what they do.
Well, Christianity has an answer for that which I think is quite satisfying.
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Liberator: You know that wouldn't really apply, right?
What, about the time? Just as a warning, don't forget to avoid antropomorphism in this area. We make statements about God all the time assuming that he is just like a human, except more powerful.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
What kind of evidence? You've seen it yourself? Or you're trusting that he's accurately and truthfully recorded his evidence?
Oh, I don't count webpages for much. I'm talking books. I have a big bookshelf on the topic, but museums are far better (like the exhibits on the Dead Sea Scrolls they held in Sydney just a few months ago).
Webpages are basicly the same form of communication as books, saying one is more reliable than the other is ridiculous. Also, its a bit pointless using archeological (sp) evidence to proof the bible is right when theres a huge amount of the same evidence that sh*ts all over the bibles version of history. Where does the 10 mile square city drowned off the coast of india fit into the bibles version of history?
http://www.spiritofmaat.com/announce/oldcity.htm
-
I'm just saying God being present at all times/places wouldn't really help explain the paradox I was trying to think my way through. In fact, it would just make it more complicated. If he is present at all times, it would mean that time was predetermined, really messing up the concept of free will.
However, I had forgotten to account for the concept of fractal timelines, which would solve the paradox fairly easily.
-
I disagree, Steak. The answer is only satisfying if you already believe in it.
In logic circles that's called an 'if and only if' relationship. Thus:
p = christianity has an answer
q = the answer is satisfying
p if and only if q (and conversely q if and only if p).
Not p if and only if not q and not q if and only if not p. Those who don't believe aren't satisfied by the answer.
Gimme and answer that a non-believer will be satisfied by.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Webpages are basicly the same form of communication as books, saying one is more reliable than the other is ridiculous. Also, its a bit pointless using archeological (sp) evidence to proof the bible is right when theres a huge amount of the same evidence that sh*ts all over the bibles version of history. Where does the 10 mile square city drowned off the coast of india fit into the bibles version of history?
http://www.spiritofmaat.com/announce/oldcity.htm
I don't think it's ridiculous at all. The ease with which someone can fabricate a completely unacreditted website far exceeds the same process to create a book.
And I challenge you to continue to dig up that huge amount. As for the city at Cambay, I don't see how that contravenes the Bible's version of history. Not to be definitive, but it sounds awfully like it would fit into where the Flood occurred (which is undated in the Bible, but for the fact that it precedes the patriarchs).
-
Originally posted by mikhael
I disagree, Steak. The answer is only satisfying if you already believe in it.
In logic circles that's called an 'if and only if' relationship. Thus:
p = christianity has an answer
q = the answer is satisfying
p if and only if q (and conversely q if and only if p).
Not p if and only if not q and not q if and only if not p. Those who don't believe aren't satisfied by the answer.
Gimme and answer that a non-believer will be satisfied by.
Like I said, I think it's quite satisfying. That's why I didn't write what the answer actually is. :)
-
How are you accounting for the flood, Setekh? Black Sea theory, or the actual Biblical narration?
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Like I said, I think it's quite satisfying. That's why I didn't write what the answer actually is. :)
Oh come on, Steak. You can't expect to have a reasonable conversation based on such circular logic. If q then p, if p then q. Thus p and q must be true. When you have children, you'll be aghast at what sorts of things they'll justify with that kind of logic.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
How are you accounting for the flood, Setekh? Black Sea theory, or the actual Biblical narration?
I'm unfamiliar with the Black Sea theory. Explain?
To be honest, Mik, I never meant it to satisfy anyone else. If a reasonable conversation has to have people disagreeing over a matter and having to make a critical decision on what's better, this or that (when neither is provable to the other), then frankly I've had enough in the past couple of weeks to last me a few years. :)
-
In that case, Steak, I'll shut up.
-
Don't get me wrong, Mik, I love the discussion. It's just that, I don't know, of late, if I had to paint a picture of HLP, it would be of a scene with everyone just arguing with each other. People are hardly listening to each other - just words flying everywhere, no one getting anywhere. Well, that's how it feels to me.
It concerns me, that's all. :nervous:
-
Funny, here I had this idea for a new forum that I was going to bring up with you admins to address that problem. :lol:
I've been enjoying the argument lately. When its not gotten out of hand (cf. Kazan-Liberator), its been amusing and interesting and certainly helpful making my brain work. You're seeing 'argument'. I'm seeing 'healthy debate', for the most part. Sure, there's been a few times where it degenerated into name calling, but the principal participants have managed to pull things back on track, usually.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
It concerns me, that's all. :nervous:
meh, don't get your pants in a bunch. You usally can't just change a persons mind with arguments.
Well, Christianity has an answer for that which I think is quite satisfying.
How the heck is that circular reasoning? It could be that since Setekh believes the bible to be true, then he also believes that it has a good answer to that question. Or it could also be that since it is a good answer to the question that is a basis for his faith.
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
How the heck is that circular reasoning? It could be that since Setekh believes the bible to be true, then he also believes that it has a good answer to that question. Or it could also be that since it is a good answer to the question that is a basis for his faith.
Thank you, Hot. You've pretty much defined circular reasoning. ;)
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Don't get me wrong, Mik, I love the discussion. It's just that, I don't know, of late, if I had to paint a picture of HLP, it would be of a scene with everyone just arguing with each other. People are hardly listening to each other - just words flying everywhere, no one getting anywhere. Well, that's how it feels to me.
It concerns me, that's all. :nervous:
Welcome to the internet ;)
It's remarkably easy to argue incessantly if you can't see who youtre arguing with, i reckon.........
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Thank you, Hot. You've pretty much defined circular reasoning. ;)
Dangit I said it wrong.
Maybe some php will help me.
$a = "Setekh believes the bible to be true, so then he believes that it has a good answer to that question.";
$b = "Since it is a good answer to the question that is a basis for his faith.";
$reason = setekh("belief");
if($a == $reason)
{
echo("See, it's not so circular after all");
} elseif($b == $reason) {
echo("See, it's not so circular after all");
}
//Or something like that..
//>_>
//<_<
//>_>
-
Originally posted by Setekh
I don't think it's ridiculous at all. The ease with which someone can fabricate a completely unacreditted website far exceeds the same process to create a book.
True, but most people would be able to distinguish between the looney toons sites and those with credability. And having the means and ability to write a book is no reflection on its authenticity. If theres doubts about a websites credability, check up on it, if you can find nothing to back up what it says then treat it with sceptisim, but distrusting all websites because its easy to make a fake one is ridiculous.
And I challenge you to continue to dig up that huge amount. As for the city at Cambay, I don't see how that contravenes the Bible's version of history. Not to be definitive, but it sounds awfully like it would fit into where the Flood occurred (which is undated in the Bible, but for the fact that it precedes the patriarchs).
Ok, first of all the bible is quite detailed in not only giving a direct line of ancestry from Adam to Jesus but also a lot of lifespans too. So while the time of the flood is undated, its easy enough to get an approximate time. I have a timeline of history here sent to me by an american aunt which traces the history of the world back to Adam and while I cannot say whether whats in it is in the bible or not, its certainly seems to be well researched. Certainly its trying to make the history of the world fit into what the bible portrays it as.
Firstly theres 50 generations between Jesus and Noah. Not all the names have specific dates attached to births etc, but for the most part they seemed to have lived average lifespans (bar a few including Abraham, who apparently had his son Isaac at the age of 100 with his sister :wtf: ). If we allow the same length of time from father to son for every decendant of Jesus we come up with a nice round fgure of 5000 years. This would put the date of the flood at roughly 7,000 bc, 2,500 years after the city in the gulf of cambay was submerged. The book itself gives the date of the flood at 2348bc, with a number of other suggested dates going as high as 3246bc. So no, it doesnt really fit with the description given by the bible. Its possible that the bible describes another flood, or that the timeline in the bible is wrong, but that opens up other questions.
Secondly the time before the bible is well documented, even better than after. Theres ten generations between Noah and Adam, and while all the people mentioned seem too have lived ridiculously long lives (Adam himself was 930 at the time of the deluge, Gen v.5) ten generations is not a lot of people when you consider that the first generation consisted of 2 people. How reasonable is it to suggest that a ten mile square city could have been constructed in that time, which not only was built thousands of miles away from the supposed site of the garden of eden but was unremarkable enough to earn no mention in the bible.
Either way it doesnt fit.
As for other evidence, you've got to be kidding me. Wtf are dinosaurs?
btw Seketh, I'm not an aethist, but I don't like stuff that doesnt add up.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Ok, first of all the bible is quite detailed in not only giving a direct line of ancestry from Adam to Jesus but also a lot of lifespans too. So while the time of the flood is undated, its easy enough to get an approximate time. I have a timeline of history here sent to me by an american aunt which traces the history of the world back to Adam and while I cannot say whether whats in it is in the bible or not, its certainly seems to be well researched. Certainly its trying to make the history of the world fit into what the bible portrays it as.
I dunno. Whose version of Jesus bloodline are you trusting? There's at least two mutually contradictory versions in the Bible, depending on which Gospel you're reading. IIRC one is a couple generations shorter than the other, and don't agree on the differences between them.
Oh and also, I believe that Jesus is only traced back as far as David. I don't know if David's bloodline is traced back to Adam.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
I'm unfamiliar with the Black Sea theory. Explain?
To be honest, Mik, I never meant it to satisfy anyone else. If a reasonable conversation has to have people disagreeing over a matter and having to make a critical decision on what's better, this or that (when neither is provable to the other), then frankly I've had enough in the past couple of weeks to last me a few years. :)
Here you go, Setekh. The Black Sea theory, curteousy of the fine writers at National Geographic: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html
Personally, I think that this makes much more sense than the story of Noah, and that the Big Bang and evolution make more sense than the Creation story. Basically, I ignore everything before Exodus.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
I dunno. Whose version of Jesus bloodline are you trusting? There's at least two mutually contradictory versions in the Bible, depending on which Gospel you're reading. IIRC one is a couple generations shorter than the other, and don't agree on the differences between them.
j00 are wrong. One is of Joseph's bloodline and the other is Mary's.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
I dunno. Whose version of Jesus bloodline are you trusting? There's at least two mutually contradictory versions in the Bible, depending on which Gospel you're reading. IIRC one is a couple generations shorter than the other, and don't agree on the differences between them.
Oh and also, I believe that Jesus is only traced back as far as David. I don't know if David's bloodline is traced back to Adam.
Well, like I said I cant vouch for its correctness. I dont really see how a couple of generations makes much difference though, particularly when the bible states man was created on the seventh day (or was it sixth) and theres evidence of life on earth for at least a couple of hundred million years.
Just for posterity I'll give the line from Adam to Jesus:
Adam - seth - enos- cainin - mahalaleel - jared - enoch - methuselah - lamech - noah - shem - arphaxad - salah - heber - peleg - reu - serug - nahor - terah - abraham - isaac - jacob - judah - pharez - esrom - aram - aminadab - nashon - salmon - boaz - obed - jesse - soloman - rehoboam - abijah - asa - jehoshophat - jehoram - uzziah - jotham - ahaz - hezekiah - manasseh - amon - josiah - jeconiah - salatheil - zerubbabel - abuid - eliakim - azor - sadoc - achim - eluid - eleazar - matthan - jacob - joseph - Jesus
-
It would interesting to note that those may not be father-son lines, but more like (some distant great) grandfather-son lines.
-
Best part of four billion years, as it happens :)
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
It would interesting to note that those may not be father-son lines, but more like (some distant great) grandfather-son lines.
Um, are you saying they are that? Because the book i got them from is quite explicitly says they are father-son. Which ones exactly are you talking about?
-
Remember, your copy is translated at least once, if not more.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Um, are you saying they are that? Because the book i got them from is quite explicitly says they are father-son. Which ones exactly are you talking about?
Talking about the one and only Bible?
I've read books that explain what I said better, I wish I could remember what they were. hmmm..... I think one is called "A case for Faith" by Lee Strobel. There are a couple books by him that deal with questions concerning weather Christianity is true or not. "Cases" rage from scientific to theological/logical arguments.Remember, your copy is translated at least once, if not more.
IIRC The Bible is translated form the most reliable ancient documents availible. So each new version is really a new translation based on new information on the language, it's usage, and/or new documents.
-
Actually depends on the version. The KJV I believe is translated at least twice, since it was a translation from the Latin, IIRC. The newer versions are usually translated as you said, though.
-
And don't forget, the KJV is edited in whatever ways King James felt was necessary to seperate himself and his new Church from the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Funny, here I had this idea for a new forum that I was going to bring up with you admins to address that problem. :lol:
I've been enjoying the argument lately. When its not gotten out of hand (cf. Kazan-Liberator), its been amusing and interesting and certainly helpful making my brain work. You're seeing 'argument'. I'm seeing 'healthy debate', for the most part. Sure, there's been a few times where it degenerated into name calling, but the principal participants have managed to pull things back on track, usually.
It's the degenerations that I'm worried about. Just trust me on this one, after thinking about the HLP of today and the HLP of 2001, well, it's certainly a change - I'm not sure about the direction.
Too much to say, anyway. I can recommend some good books for you, though. :)
-
Originally posted by Setekh
It's the degenerations that I'm worried about. Just trust me on this one, after thinking about the HLP of today and the HLP of 2001, well, it's certainly a change - I'm not sure about the direction.
Too much to say, anyway. I can recommend some good books for you, though. :)
Well you can't forget that for the most part AFAIK we put aside our differences when we mod. :D
-
Originally posted by Setekh
It's the degenerations that I'm worried about. Just trust me on this one, after thinking about the HLP of today and the HLP of 2001, well, it's certainly a change - I'm not sure about the direction.
Remind me to talk to you in another venue about my idea. You might--or might not--like it.
Too much to say, anyway. I can recommend some good books for you, though. :)
I dunno, Steak. Your books don't allow for some of my beliefs. We can discuss it, man to man, in private, but I don't think either of us will get anywhere. I'd enjoy talking about it with you though, I think. :)
-
HLP of 2001 I don't remember very well, and I'm reasonably sure you don't, either. Nostalgia does funny things. I do know that recently the forum's been quite a lot more interesting than, say, HLP of mid-2003.
That said, whatever's going wrong could have been averted if only I were given banning powers, and maybe the ability to edit other peoples' posts to say what I want them t- I mean, to be more acceptable to the spirit of the board.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
And don't forget, the KJV is edited in whatever ways King James felt was necessary to seperate himself and his new Church from the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope.
You've confused your British monarchy. Henry VIII was the one who broke away. James I was a Stuart, who were far more Catholic than the Plantagenets (sp?). In fact, that's why the Stuarts were overthrown and replaced with the current ruling family.
-
@ Hot: yeah, and thank God for that. That's why HLP is here, after all. I have a feeling we lose it a little when we forget why we're all here. :)
@ Mik: idea, hmmm? Get on ICQ some time. I agree about us probably not going anywhere. But, well, my books don't allow for your beliefs? I read books that don't allow my beliefs all the time. If new stuff makes more sense, I try to change. A bit like science. ;) It's not a 'perfectly objective process', but it never will be, will it? Anyway, indeed, let's have a chat sometime.
@ Stryke: true dat about the nostalgia, but I still have fairly clear memories of January 2001. I certainly remember composing every email to invite each person to the forums back then... they were certainly some great times. I love HLP now, but it's... different. Still thinking about it. :nod: Ummm, yeah, as for those banning and editting powers... I'll keep that in mind for the next online gaming community I start, eh? :p
-
nostalgia?
HLP main forum will be 3 years old on monday
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,2781.0.html
-
I remember how I ended up here. Submitted news on Ross 128, and Thunder ended up posting it here instead of there. Think it was my first mission or something to that effect....
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
nostalgia?
HLP main forum will be 3 years old on monday
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,2781.0.html
"Main forum". :) Splitting has been the way we've grown. First it was Gen FS; then it was HL; then HL Art, then SCP broke off from FS modding, and is now bigger than Gen FS. It's pretty exciting. :)
-
Originally posted by an0n
Which begs the question: Why?
Why would a being of infinite power give a **** about the right of a few measly little insects to choose what they do.
Because He created us, because He loves us, but perhaps most relevant for you, because He has the free will to choose to do so.
Originally posted by an0n
And I should also point out that on both microscopic and macroscopic scales, free-will contradicts all natural laws and more importantly, it drectly opposes the principle of cause and effect.
No, you're confusing free will with the ability to actually do anything you want. Free Will means that you are free to try to jump off a bridge and fly. Ability means that if you try such a stunt (which I in no way, shape, or form encourage...), you're gonna fall.
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
I'm still not quite sure how omniscience and free will are supposed to go together. If God knows everything that has been, is, and will be, how can we make a choice? And if we can make choices, doesn't that void the concept of an omniscient God?
I love this question in particular. :D
God is outside of Time. Imagine Him as a big bearded guy sitting somewhere, looking at this thing called "Time". It looks like a line. "Time" progresses along said line left to right:
---->--------->------A----->------B------->-----C------->---
He can see the beginning from the end. He can see us at a point (A) in "Time" that is, for us, before we make a choice. He can also look to the right a bit further and see us actually making that choice (B). A bit further to the right and He sees the consequences of that choice we freely made (C). He can choose to tell us at point A that certain events at point C will occur (aka a prophecy). This doesn't mean that He will force us to make a certain choice at point B in order to get to result C. He knows that we "already" (from His POV) made that choice, freely.
So from our POV, we have free will. And from God's POV, He can simply see that freely made decision we make, and act - at any point in time - on that knowledge.
Does that help any?
Originally posted by Gank
Just for posterity I'll give the line from Adam to Jesus:
Adam - seth - enos- cainin - mahalaleel - jared - enoch - methuselah - lamech - noah - shem - arphaxad - salah - heber - peleg - reu - serug - nahor - terah - abraham - isaac - jacob - judah - pharez - esrom - aram - aminadab - nashon - salmon - boaz - obed - jesse - soloman - rehoboam - abijah - asa - jehoshophat - jehoram - uzziah - jotham - ahaz - hezekiah - manasseh - amon - josiah - jeconiah - salatheil - zerubbabel - abuid - eliakim - azor - sadoc - achim - eluid - eleazar - matthan - jacob - joseph - Jesus
You forgot David, after Jesse and before Solomon.
And as for the KJV / translations / whatever discussion, I can read Biblical Hebrew, so if you have any questions about the source in the OT just ask me. :)
-
Uh, no.
If the question is "Why'd you hit that guy?", the answer is always "Because he called me a fag".
And "What did you do?" always prompts "Hit the guy".
I really don't understand why people have such trouble grasping the concept.
Everything you 'choose' is only 'chosen' because your past experiences dictate your response. The only way you could 'choose' something different would be if those past experiences were in a state of flux, but if they were, the universe would collapse.
-
Sorry. I got the monarchs confused but not the editing. ;)
-
If that were the case an0n, a whole host of other atrocities would still go on. People can choose to change, oftentimes all it takes is the offering of a different path, it's part of what makes us sentient.
-
My GOD! You just keep getting dumber and dumber.
Not just because you completely missed the point, but also because even within the confines of your child-like mind and simplistic argument, on a psychological and pratical level your comments are complete ****e.
Regardless of what your 9 year old cousin tells you, people don't change.
Everyone, without exception, is exactly the same at 30 years old as they were at 5 years old. Events in their life are inconsequential and they'll act according to whatever their 5 year old mind tells them.
But as I said, that's so not the point.
-
[q]Everyone, without exception, is exactly the same at 30 years old as they were at 5 years old. Events in their life are inconsequential and they'll act according to whatever their 5 year old mind tells them.[/q]
Thats almost as unbelievable as creationism. :wtf:
People change every day as they learn and grow through new experiences in thier lives. Example - my friends are commenting these days how much I've changed from the end of high school.
I see changes in them, and in old girlfriends at uni. Everyone changes as they see events unfold in thier lives.
I admit that our choices are predetermined by our experiences, but those experiences do change our overall judegement along the way.
Fair enough, I will always be a romantic, I'll always be reactionary about certain matters, etc, but the way I go about dealing with those aspects of myself and the resulting events will changes as I gain more personal experiences in life.
No one is ever the exact same from one moment to the next, conciousness precludes it.
-
When you're all alone, in the dark, you'll only ever be 5.
You may complicate things with masks you show to others with varying degrees of success. The things you know may vary your vocabulary and the way in which you present your arguments.
But in the end, when there's just you, you're 5.
Trust me, I know. I used to make a habit of just watching people when they thought they were in their own little world. In that half a second after they say something funny or provocative, then recoil. Thats when you see who they really are. While they're changing masks. While their mind is too busy playing through scenarios of what might come of their next sentence to worry about how people percieve them.
At their core, everyone is five years old.
-
Hmm, best not to comment on the irony here... :D
-
And how many years have you have to learn this an0n? I will accept that you are probably younger than me, possibly by as much as 10 years, so frankly, unless you have somehow subjectively lived a decade longer than everyone else in the same span of objective time try again when you're older.
When you've seen someone who was an angry booze-hound for nearly 30 years change into a relatively soft-spoken nice guy, you'll understand.
-
Side note: we're not the only ones (http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,62431,00.html) to be discussion-happy over The Passion. :p
-
Originally posted by an0n
When you're all alone, in the dark, you'll only ever be 5.
You may complicate things with masks you show to others with varying degrees of success. The things you know may vary your vocabulary and the way in which you present your arguments.
But in the end, when there's just you, you're 5.
Trust me, I know. I used to make a habit of just watching people when they thought they were in their own little world. In that half a second after they say something funny or provocative, then recoil. Thats when you see who they really are. While they're changing masks. While their mind is too busy playing through scenarios of what might come of their next sentence to worry about how people percieve them.
At their core, everyone is five years old.
I've quite a few objections to this, one of them being that it is not true for all people. Some, sure. But there is such a thing as wisdom that is learned from living. I don't mean some phony Confucious Says wisdom, I mean a real (however limited) insight into Life and Stuff.
When you get to the point where you simply don't care what others think (usually near the end of life) you stop wearing masks and then you can see that some people have actually adavanced past being 5 years old.
-
Nope.
Totally, unreservedly and throughout all their life, everyone is five years old.
-
Are you just trying to see how many people you can get to agree with you out of sheer stubbornness? You sound like a friend of mine. :rolleyes:
-
..........Maybe.
But largely because the proof of my argument is largely intangible and can only be understood through careful observations of people.
It's like playing pool. No-one can really teach you, you just have to watch and learn.
-
This particular friend of mine, whenever he gets caught up in a debate/argument, usually takes the stance of some certain BS and presents it in a fashion that manages to convince pretty much everyone around him that he knows what he's talking about.
I can see right through him.
And you're talking BS. ;) :D
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Side note: we're not the only ones (http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,62431,00.html) to be discussion-happy over The Passion. :p
I thought everyone else was discussion-happy about the "scandalous" sequel Gibson is making: The Lust of the Christ :p
-
No no no! Now you're confusing movies! It's The Lust of the Mohicans! ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
No no no! Now you're confusing movies! It's The Lust of the Mohicans! ;)
Would mind seeing that one :) There aren't anywhere near enough american-indian babes in movies :D
Not certain if anyone has posted this already (and I can't be bothered to check more than a couple of pages back) but this made me laugh.
Jesus Demands Greater Creative Control Over Next Movie (http://www.theonion.com/news/)
-
I showed that Onion article to my wife. Her immediate reaction was, "Ooooooh... they're going to Heeeeeeeeeeeeell... again." Gotta love the Onion.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
I showed that Onion article to my wife. Her immediate reaction was, "Ooooooh... they're going to Heeeeeeeeeeeeell... again." Gotta love the Onion.
They've been told they're going to hell so often I'm suprised they haven't started selling the spare tickets :D
I especially liked
"I tend to have problems pitching to studio executives," Christ said. "Last week, I appeared in a vision before a D-girl at Sony, and I said, 'Be not afraid, for I am Jesus—I have written a treatment and Matthew McConaughey is interested in the role of Herod.' Apparently, she was a little freaked-out by the vision and she ended up passing on the idea. Ron said that next time I should just schedule a lunch meeting like everyone else."
:lol:
-
:lol: