Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Jenna Jameson, Janet Jackson, and The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre

By circletimessquare in Media
Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 01:38:37 PM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)
Culture

The box office receipts in the US are in for the Easter weekend in the US, and The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre, in theatres for 7 weeks, has climbed back into the number one spot.

At the same time, US Attorney General John Ashcroft has quietly begun an initiative to tackle a pernicious problem according to the religious right in the US: pornography.

My question for the religious right is simple: how is it possible to embrace a movie so overwhelmingly violent in content, even encouraging parents to take their children to see it and ignore the R rating?:

"The violence is necessary to understand the sacrifice Jesus made," First Family pastor Jerry Johnston says. His Baptist church has rented out a half-dozen theaters in Kansas City, Kan., and has reserved auditoriums Friday night for children 11 and older.

Johnston concedes they'll be disturbed by the violence. "I hope they're disturbed enough to make their peace with Jesus."

While at the same time, why does the religious right find depictions of plain vanilla sexual intercourse so immoral that it must require legal intervention to prevent people they don't even know from seeing it? What is the root of this strange dichotomy among the overly religious: sex very bad, violence no problem.


I saw The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre in the third row of a packed movie house in Times Square behind a family with three children clearly under ten years old. One child looked to be five or six years old. I was dumbfounded. Before me on the screen for the length of the fare was a long advertisement for brutal sadomasochism. There were flashes and flashbacks to some of the stories of Jesus's miracles and experiences, but these were often no longer than thirty seconds in length, and completely out of context: you had to have preknowledge of the Bible in order to digest the snippets of Jesus's past.

But to get right down to it, the entire movie was out of context. It had nothing essentially to do with Jesus or his message. It was simply a snuff film of his final brutal hours on the Earth.

An analogy to the "The Passion of the Christ" might be to make a movie called "The Passion of Gandhi." That movie, of course, would not be about Gandhi's political rise and peaceful battles with colonial Britain, but instead the movie would start with Gandhi being shot, and the rest would simply show, slowly and with sadistic "passion," the bloody suffering of watching Gandhi pass away.

Which is the whole crux of my problem with this movie. If "The Passion of the Christ" is the great paean to the beauty of Christianity, then all I can conclude is that spiritual beauty is somehow directly rooted in extreme violence.

If someone took this movie to an isolated village on the Amazon whose inhabitants knew nothing of Christianity, and they showed the Jesus Chainsaw Massacre to them, then all the villagers would wonder is what exactly this snuff film had to do with anything. If said movie were shown to them by a missionary, I am sure the isolated villagers would wonder why this odd person who was obsessed with violence wanted them to join a sadomasochistic blood cult.

There is a lot of good in the Bible, there is much tolerance and positive messages of love in the story of the life of Jesus Christ. Most anyone would do well to study the story of Jesus Christ, if not as a Christian, then at least as a historical lesson of the strength of tolerance and compassion triumphing over wickedness and corruption. Studying Jesus's life would enrich the spiritual life of anyone.

But this movie? It was nothing but a sadistic play-by-play, up-close-and-personal focus on the final brutal visceral hours of Jesus. The gallons of blood flow, the breaking bones crack, the Roman henchmen cackle at their inflicted pain, the skin is torn and pulped, the viscera and the rib cage underneath is exposed... for hours, with nothing else in sight. Meanwhile, for reasons beyond my understanding, if you show half of a breast for half of a second, you have committed a grave moral sin.

I am of course talking about Janet Jackson's inadvertent (or purposeful, according to some) flashing of a breast during the football Superbowl half time show in January. There was much outrage and outcry about this display.

You show a child a female breast and you've scarred his mind? But, as some in the religious right were encouraging (to heck with the rating, all of a sudden, apparently), take your kids to this movie and you do what... enlighten them?

Let us quantify the showing of Janet Jackson's breast as compared to the Jesus Chainsaw Massacre:
Half a second of uninvited breast.
Versus:
Two hours of ultraviolent evisceration.
Got it?

Do you say that the breast was uninvited but the movie was? Can you say the same for the children in the theater? And can someone honestly say to me that Janet Jackson's breast, however invited or not, is somehow more psychologically damaging than two hours of buckets of blood? To anyone of any age? In my mind at least, half a second of uninvited breast is far less of a "sin," by orders of magnitude, than two hours of invited gore.

Now, you may ask, what is the fairness of this comparison? Well, they are related in my mind because they are historically contemporaneous: the same religious right that asks us to not look at pornography asks us to look at (and take our children to) a bloody gorefest. The same people who are shocked at seeing Janet Jackson's breast turn around and implore us to understand the majesty of the sacrifice Jesus made for us... in the most counterproductive way possible.

When I see a movie like the Jesus Chainsaw Massacre, all I see is a lot of violent sheep before me, brainwashed from childhood by the great religions of the world, imbued into a cycle of violence and hatred. And all physical demonstrations of love, such as sex of course, being demonized as the epitome of harm to your psyche. When the reverse is genuinely true.

How a breast, a symbol of food for the young and innocent, a completely natural, God and/ or evolution-given organ, worn on the chests of half of the human population, can be a fount of evil if displayed, is utterly beyond me.

Now, I can understand all of the objections to seeing a female breast uninvited, of inadvertent sexual arousal, of a desire to have social intercourse without dovetailing into sexual intercourse. I can understand all of those situations where seeing a breast is inappropriate. But what I do not understand are those who stand against pornography enjoyed in private, and embrace a movie of stupefying violence, all at the same time.

Here is their great "The Passion of the Christ": two hours of the bloody evisceration of a man. So I think I understand the great religions and the religious right and religious fundamentalists all too well. It is about as far away from true spirituality as you can possibly get. Jesus truly weeps, the intolerance that is spread in the name of his message of tolerance. Centuries pass, and a message of love and tolerance is used as an excuse to screen a snuff film, and crush the image of physical expressions of love.

It is funny how the keepers of the religious right spend so much of their time arguing against the rights of homosexuals, of women, of other cultures, and not dwelling one instant on the tolerance that their prophet speaks of. Religious fundamentalists, I salute you: your brainwashing makes your blindness so complete, you can watch so much violence, and call it a message of peace and love. Your hypocrisy is simply awesome, your blindness so complete it is deafening.

It is truly dumbfounding, and I fear for this ultraviolent world we live in and in the time we live in, mankind's teenage years, where such incredible hypocrisy and blindness reigns so supreme: violence good, sex bad.

In short: God, save us from the boobs!

No, not those boobs. And no, not your violent God.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o the Easter weekend
o The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre
o climbed back into the number one spot.
o US Attorney General John Ashcroft
o has quietly begun an initiative
o pornograph y
o encouragin g parents to take their children
o legal intervention
o Also by circletimessquare


Display: Sort:
Jenna Jameson, Janet Jackson, and The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre | 721 comments (565 topical, 156 editorial, 2 hidden)
It's just a Jesus movie for Fangoria readers. (2.73 / 19) (#20)
by Psycho Dave on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 06:59:03 AM EST

I love movie violence. I can say I'm a pure afficiando of cinematic bloodletting.

Needless to say that even as an atheist, I was excited to see this film. I considered dressing up as a bloody Jesus in a loincloth for the opening of the film (ala freakish Star Wars/Lord of the Ring fanboys) just to piss off the churchy people in line. Alas, my work schedule prevented me from doing so.

I went the next weekend to a sold-out show. More shocking than the amount of kids in the audience was the fact that all of the families were stocking up on overpriced Cokes, popcorn, Twizzlers, and hot dogs. The idea that all these good Christian people were gonna just munch away while their savior was getting sliced up was vaguely disturbing.

At least more disturbing than the film. Sure, the violence was graphic, even excessive, but it wasn't that bad (at least to little ole desensitized by pop culture me). In fact, I was disappointed. Sure, I knew going in that the movie would be kinda pointless to a non-Christian like myself. But I at least wanted it to make me wince.

This movie is a non-issue, the controversy surrounding it as overblown as the outrage over Janet Jackson's titty. I swear Mel Gibson made a deal with the ADL to get them to do the film's marketing. This film is about as offensive to Jews as Schindler's List is to Germans.

Despite my lenient article moderation policy, I vow to -1 every article in the queue that mentions "The Passion of the Jesus", or Janet Jackson after this one.

CTS, your rant is so two months ago.

no it's not two months old, it's incredibly timely (2.16 / 6) (#22)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:06:22 AM EST

it was number one at the box office this (easter) weekend, and just this weekend, ashcroft began his long delayed and promised assault on pornography

it's incredibly timely

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

No, not really. (2.57 / 7) (#32)
by Psycho Dave on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:43:05 AM EST

It was number one at the box office two months ago, and Ashcroft has had it in for pornography since the Bush administration came to office.

Relax, my fellow wankers. Both porn and Christian hypocrisy will survive the reign of "The Passion" and Herr Ashcroft.

[ Parent ]

listern carefully, stubborn dave (none / 2) (#36)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 08:07:14 AM EST

2 weeks ago, number 5, last weekend, number 1

april 11th: news stories of ashcroft initiating new antiporn vanguard

it's timely

capice?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Easter weekend. (2.66 / 6) (#46)
by Psycho Dave on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 08:28:51 AM EST

Easter + Jesus movie = Profit.

Who saw that coming?

[ Parent ]

it was... (2.72 / 11) (#49)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 08:39:06 AM EST

the second coming!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You forget... (none / 0) (#211)
by mcgrew on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 03:19:38 PM EST

It was just released outside the US.

-------
"Those who would give up, um, yada yada yada" -Anonymous Coward
[ Parent ]

Your post (none / 2) (#237)
by Kax on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 04:38:54 PM EST

is what I would write if I was trying to troll someone like me.

You must suck, but I'll give you a pass if you're under 17.  Let me know.  Thanks.

[ Parent ]

How many times have you seen Passion? (none / 1) (#307)
by Psycho Dave on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 10:10:15 PM EST

Are you a Jesus freak or a Janet Jackson fan? How have I trolled you?

I am not a troll and never will be. I say what I mean. I mean what I say. Trolls (and the people obsessed by them) are ruining k5.

BTW, I'm over 17.

Fuck you.

[ Parent ]

I will reciprocate (none / 1) (#326)
by Kax on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 01:07:16 AM EST

with a hearty fuck you as well!  Or something.  Let me buy you drink, if you are over 21, that is.

[ Parent ]
I'm over 21. (none / 1) (#332)
by Psycho Dave on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 03:26:59 AM EST

But I don't go to gay bars. So, no thanks.

[ Parent ]
You should. (none / 1) (#350)
by Kax on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 09:55:59 AM EST

Attention mongers fit in well at gay bars.  Impress some strapping fellow with your tales about how you courageously dressed up like Jesus to go see the Passion.  You should have seen the looks on their faces you're so cool you cutey wootey whippersnapper ooooo fun mommy and daddy still love yooouu!!!+++

[ Parent ]
Know quite a bit about gay bars... (none / 0) (#488)
by Psycho Dave on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 06:57:09 PM EST

...do you?

[ Parent ]
l (none / 0) (#546)
by Kax on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 12:24:00 PM EST

a
m
e

[ Parent ]
I more or less agree (2.77 / 9) (#24)
by Timo Laine on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:09:37 AM EST

I think I agree with your main point here, and I'm going to +1 the story. It is weird what you can and cannot show to people in a movie, not just in the US but in most countries. Still, I disagree with you on some points. (I haven't seen the movie yet. Actually I was going to go see it today, but didn't.)
If someone took this movie to an isolated village on the Amazon whose inhabitants knew nothing of Christianity, and they showed the Jesus Chainsaw Massacre to them, then all the villagers would wonder is what exactly this snuff film had to do with anything.
I think you are missing the point. Mel Gibson probably wouldn't want to show this movie to such villagers. It is aimed at people who already more or less know what Christianity is. Apparently Gibson wanted to emphasize a certain aspect of Jesus's life that usually doesn't get much attention.
There is a lot of good in the Bible, there is much tolerance and positive messages of love in the story of the life of Jesus Christ.
This is an example of how Jesus is usually seen. I don't think this premise would not make a very original or interesting movie, because it is already common knowledge that Jesus was a kind and humble man.

you are correct, in a roundabout way (1.40 / 5) (#27)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:20:14 AM EST

yes, mel gibson's intention may not to be to make a missionary's tool, but if you love something so deeply as mel obviously loves christianity, why would you want it's message to be so easily misconstrued?

and yes, another ho-hum story of "gee isn't jesus swell" would be a big snore and probably wouldn't be seen by 12 people (instead of a gazillion)

but i can also make a movie called "the passion of abraham lincoln" and start with the assassin booth shooting him in the head, and having the blood drip out of his ear as he slowly passes away... but that's hardly a story of abraham lincoln, no matter how many people would see it, and hardly the point: is your assertion that sensational visceral violence that has nothing to do with the message you are conveying is perfectly acceptable in order to boost audience attendence by playing to their basest instincts?

why can't i go to the religious right, show them a 2 hour movie of a roman orgy and say to them: "see? it's all about how bad sex is for you"

same thing, right? ;-P


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

hmm (2.60 / 5) (#39)
by Timo Laine on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 08:16:19 AM EST

but i can also make a movie called "the passion of abraham lincoln" and start with the assassin booth shooting him in the head, and having the blood drip out of his ear as he slowly passes away... but that's hardly a story of abraham lincoln, no matter how many people would see it, and hardly the point
Well, I believe there really are people who think that Jesus's suffering is a very important part of Christianity. In contrast, there are few people who think that getting murdered was an essential element of what Abraham Lincoln tried to achieve.
is your assertion that sensational visceral violence that has nothing to do with the message you are conveying is perfectly acceptable in order to boost audience attendence by playing to their basest instincts?
I am not sure if the movie is violent because violence draws more crowds. From what I hear, people don't like the violence at all. Perhaps they have become interested in the movie partly because of the violence, but not in the way someone likes Jean-Claude van Damme's movies because of their violence. Maybe the "basest instincts" demand that bad guys be killed, rather than Jesus?

[ Parent ]
martyrdom (1.16 / 6) (#61)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 09:03:58 AM EST

martyrdom, or someone dying for a cause they believe in, greatly increases people's interest in anyone's story... from jesus right on down to suicide bombers... sort of like "well, if someone thought it was worth dying for, whatever it was is worth at least a bit of my sympathy"

so jesus getting killed and abraham getting killed is indeed a visceral primal selling point for their life stories: martyrdom

however, it is hardly essential to any person's story who gets killed in the end for what they believe in

this movie was just the act of martyrdom, end of story

as for your "From what I hear, people don't like the violence at all.", you apparently haven't met this flavor of brainwashed sheeple yet:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2004/4/15/52411/7537/37#37

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

BUt again... (none / 1) (#210)
by mcgrew on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 03:18:40 PM EST

Lincoln wasn't a martyr. He was just a guy who got murdered. The only reason his murder is remembered is because it came after the bloodiest war in US history, that he presided over.

Lincoln did not die for his country, as the soldiers in his war did. Lincoln died at the hands of a murderer.

-------
"Those who would give up, um, yada yada yada" -Anonymous Coward
[ Parent ]

Hmm (none / 1) (#250)
by jmzero on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 05:48:12 PM EST

I don't think you understand the significance Christians associate with the death of Jesus.  To many - including those that wrote the New Testament - the death of Jesus is pretty much the center point of the Earth's history.  

Mel apparently feels this way.  And he also recognizes that most Christians have come to think about this event in a way much different than reality.  Most Christians understand that Jesus died on a cross, but may not understand - or feel - the brutal, ugly nature of that sacrifice.  

To many Christians, their religion has become sort of a vague, feel-good Oprah-ism.  For better of for worse, I think Mel wants to remind people that their religion actually hinges on a brutal event.

You may not like the movie, and that's fine - but it has a point, and the script is focused specifically to address that point.  
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

ho-hum! The real centre point of christianity... (none / 0) (#258)
by asdf 101 on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 06:25:28 PM EST

... is not the death of Jesus, but the resurrection.  Great deal of good it would have done to the reputation of ole' boy J and to the faith of his followers if he hadn't pulled off a trick from the beyond.

Between Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, me thinks they pulled off a great bout of story-telling to make sure everybody who believed kept the faith.

To anybody who wants to argue with reason, were you there to whet a paranormal myth. No, I wasn't there either, but again, I believe in logic and reason over what I'm "just told".

[ Parent ]

Hmmm (none / 0) (#282)
by jmzero on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:15:58 PM EST

I suppose it depends on how you look at it.  

Lazarus returned from the dead (though not, I guess, of his own volition).  But he didn't die to pay for the sins of mankind.  That, I understand, was a one time deal.

I'll compromise on "to a Christian, Jesus's death is one of the top 5 big events in history"  
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

The problem with your argument (none / 0) (#209)
by mcgrew on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 03:15:50 PM EST

Lincoln didn't die for my sins. Jesus lived his whole life for that last three days, when he could make the supreme sacrifice.

When you get to hell, Jesus will be there to show you the way out. Rejoice!

-------
"Those who would give up, um, yada yada yada" -Anonymous Coward
[ Parent ]

Actually... (none / 1) (#233)
by ti dave on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 04:22:41 PM EST

You may be wrong. Don't be so cock-sure.
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
quite (none / 3) (#186)
by Battle Troll on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 02:04:57 PM EST

Mel Gibson probably wouldn't want to show this movie to such villagers. It is aimed at people who already more or less know what Christianity is.

If you played a Mozart string quartet to people unfamiliar with Western music, they wouldn't be 'competent listeners' and thus would have difficulty understanding the language of the piece.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

not much attention? (none / 0) (#696)
by ckaminski on Wed Apr 21, 2004 at 11:39:01 AM EST

um, the whole of Christianity is FOUNDED on the act of Jesus dying on the cross.  Before I got excommunicated from the church for pretending to snipe the priest from under the pews (hey, i was 7), all I remember was every 3rd sentence something about jesus dying on the cross, dying for my sins..  Every conversation I have with people trying to "save" me consists of them asking: did you know that jesus died for your sins?  

[ Parent ]
I'll vote this up as it is (2.80 / 20) (#25)
by I Hate Yanks on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:14:32 AM EST

But I think it needs a bit of trimming.

I've always been appaled by the American (and British) attitude towards sex. Continental European countries are much more sensible. Sex is neccesary and natural and good. Violence is unwanted, uneccesary and bad.


Reasons to hate Americans (No. 812): Circletimessquare lives there.

someone wittier than me made a joke once: (2.55 / 9) (#29)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:23:25 AM EST

something along the lines of:

"to americans, europeans are perverted cowards,
and to europeans, americans are violent prudes"

personally, i like to think of myself as a violent pervert ;-P


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

can we please have a poll? (2.75 / 8) (#50)
by 6mute on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 08:39:41 AM EST

perverted cowards v violent prudes?

[ Parent ]
vote this coment up or down (2.95 / 23) (#218)
by jacoplane on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 03:40:01 PM EST

perverted cowards are better than violent prudes... vote up if you agree, down otherwise..

[ Parent ]
The Passion of the Christ proved to me (2.57 / 19) (#31)
by nebbish on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:34:32 AM EST

Once and for all that religious fundamentalism is for idiots. Violence aside, the film portrays everything in black and white terms, where everyone is either a saint or evil. Watching it is to see the world in the simplistic way that the religiously devout see it, and it's fucking scary stuff.

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee

Ummm, and how was that? (2.00 / 4) (#151)
by kphrak on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 11:04:10 AM EST

First, it's not really "religious fundamentalism". It's the Christian religion. There are very few people who deny that there was actually a Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified -- it's pretty well established by history. What people have a hard time agreeing on is whether he was the Son of God or not.

Religious "fundamentalism" is the idea that modern times are godless and full of problems, and that the church (and maybe society) in the past was much more in keeping with whatever religion the fundamentalist believes in; the desire to go back to "that old time religion" as the song goes. Christian fundamentalism the way we know it is pretty recent, dating back probably to the 50s or 60s. Islamic fundamentalism is a bit older, I suspect, but not by that much.

"The Passion" is a lot of things, but it's not black and white; some people hate Jesus (the religious authorities, which, by the way, are about as "fundamentalist" as you can get), some love him (his followers, family), and some just don't care, or are just looking for some fun (the soldiers, Herod and his court). The most interesting character, I thought, was not Jesus but Pilate; he can't understand why the crowd wants blood, he wants to see justice done in an orderly fashion, but he's a career politician who ends up giving the mob what they want.

I think really what you're saying is, "How could anyone torture someone like that? It's so unrealistic, no one could be that evil!" Your sensibilities might be shocked a bit, but the ancient world was a cruel place, and it hasn't changed that much. There were about half a dozen genocides committed in the last century, and those are just the ones I can think of right now. I think these people who are bringing kids to the movie as a "religious experience" are just plain crazy, but the movie wasn't some fundamentalist oversimplification; unfortunately, it was all too realistic in its portrayal of humanity.


Describe yourself in your sig!
American computer programmer, living in Portland, OR.


[ Parent ]
Islamic fundamentalism (none / 2) (#185)
by Battle Troll on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 02:03:14 PM EST

The Koran's literal inerrancy is an essential tenet of Sunnism and a practical tenet of Shi'aism (IIRC, Shi'ites believe that the text has been altered in certain areas but hold the rest as inerrant.) Most contemporary Muslims are in this sense fundamentalists. But Saudi-style Islamic cultural fundamentalism inherets from the work of the first al Wahhab, who was born in the early 18th century. (His theological roots were in the strict Salafi school, which was also the basis of Deobandism, a parallel movement in India deriving from a different school of interpretation but not theology.)
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
Re: Islamic fundamentalism (none / 0) (#337)
by ksandstr on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 04:17:51 AM EST

So clearly there are two near-orthogonal flavours of fundamentalism, i.e. the one where you consider your holy books as im-fucking-mutable and the one where you use them (and presumably some pre-existing religious authority) as pretext for whichever "I wasn't getting any by age 25 so everyone else has to fucking suffer!" policies you'd want to impose.

From what I've understood, keeping the Koran "clean" and unchanged has been a priority for Islamic scholars for the better part of two millennia now, fundamentalist or not. Just to clarify for some who haven't quite done their homework.

BTW, best username ever.

--
Gegen kommunismus und bolschewismus und terrorismus, jawohl!

[ Parent ]

fundamentalism (none / 0) (#586)
by Battle Troll on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 05:55:49 PM EST

The term derives from a conservative series of books on Christianity issued in the early XXth century. Today, it can mean anything from a theological position (textual literalism) with no implicit political mission, to a set of social and political views that may have comparatively little to do with the strictly religious aspects, or even the traditional beliefs, of the religions in which they are rooted.

In any religion, schools of practice are a more powerful defining element than texts; it is primarily praxis, not only theology, that divides Eastern and Western Christians, and the major branches of Islam. Because most Islamic schools are legalistic (they consider the Koran as primarily a historical and legal document from which to extract the correct laws and customs by which to govern society,) they are beholden to the literal truth of the Koran. That said, there is simply no such thing as allowing the text itself to rule society; rule must be effected by men, and men cannot be a text but only interpret it.

Many Muslim literalists have nonetheless entertained chivalric or even quietistic codes of behaviour. Such messages don't fly among disaffected gangs of illiterate, unemployed young men. Really, the wonder is not that Islam is violent but that its unrest is comparatively contained.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

Wrong (none / 2) (#217)
by CodeWright on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 03:30:24 PM EST

You say:
There are very few people who deny that there was actually a Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified -- it's pretty well established by history.
There is actually very little historical record of Jesus -- a great deal of theology and history of belief in Jesus, but virtually nothing which provides any sort of historical verification for the existence of Jesus.

In fact, there is a large body of both scholarship and theology which describes Jesus as an idealized messiah created by the followers of the Apostle Paul.

--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
I disagree. (none / 1) (#245)
by romperstomper on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 05:21:09 PM EST

I have my own share of "The Passion of the Christ" criticism, but that the film showed everything in a pure "black and white" or "good and evil" form is definitely not one of them.  

The best rebuttal to this claim, I believe, is Pilate.  The guy basically speaks on Jesus' behalf to the mob, defending him from their bloodlust, and eventually gives in against his own judgement.  If that isn't an example of the gray area in humanity, I don't know what is.  

And as lesser examples, Satan and Judas.  

Satan, the epitome of evil, is portrayed 99% of the movie as a calm, soft-speaking individual.  Freaky-looking, of course, but possibly one of the more rational individuals in the entire film.

Judas, betrays Jesus and is subsequently eaten alive by his guilt, tries to return the money paid for his betrayal, and eventually can't live with himself and commits suicide.  

As I see it, far from black and white.  

[ Parent ]

Reading this gave me a new theory (2.16 / 6) (#34)
by livus on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:55:02 AM EST

namely, that The Passion of the Christ is really a foucaldian plot to prove that Michel Foucault was right about everything.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

except anal sex (none / 0) (#379)
by LilDebbie on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 12:33:39 PM EST

AIDS is a bitch, isn't it?

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
don't be silly (none / 0) (#526)
by livus on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 01:21:13 AM EST

it was most likely anal FISTING that did that.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]
ahh... (none / 1) (#550)
by LilDebbie on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 01:25:01 PM EST

I stand corrected.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Mel is laughing at you (2.50 / 8) (#40)
by pauldamer on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 08:17:16 AM EST

all the way to the bank.

that's true (none / 2) (#43)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 08:22:33 AM EST

he is laughing all the way to the bank, but i don't think he's laughing at me ;-)

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
didn't you pay to see his movie? (none / 0) (#254)
by donio on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 06:10:58 PM EST

did you sneak in?

[ Parent ]
Funny (none / 3) (#144)
by interjay on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 10:48:16 AM EST

I didn't know that morality is determined by the size of people's bank accounts.

Or maybe I'm just naive.

[ Parent ]

You obviously know nothing of Christianity [nt] (none / 3) (#302)
by Haunting Koan on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 09:03:56 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Mel told Caviziel when casting (none / 0) (#206)
by mcgrew on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 03:10:17 PM EST

"I'm going to level with you, kid. This movie is going to be a career killer".

He fully expected this to be the last movie he would ever be allowed to be involved in.

-------
"Those who would give up, um, yada yada yada" -Anonymous Coward
[ Parent ]

ah c'mon (2.40 / 5) (#45)
by minerboy on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 08:27:35 AM EST

Both of these instances were just clever marketing ploys, If the critics on the left would have ignored the passion, it would have been simply the personal expression that it was meant to be, and would be in video stores now. Janet Jackson's Sucky new album has sold more, she has appeared on TV more since flashing her boob. It's been great for her career. Frankly both are a big "so what?"



well i'm glad you can be so droll (none / 3) (#48)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 08:33:25 AM EST

so why even comment on the article at all if i'm just another sheeple taking this crap too seriously?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
"Droll" is one of those words (none / 2) (#60)
by killmepleez on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 09:02:25 AM EST

which everybody uses, but nobody seems to know the actual definition.

Oh well, language evolves...

__
"I instantly realized that everything in my life that I thought was unfixable was totally fixable - except for having just jumped."
--from "J
[ Parent ]
don't be so droll ;-P (nt) (none / 1) (#64)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 09:09:46 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Hey guys... (none / 1) (#204)
by mcgrew on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 03:08:58 PM EST

It's spelled with a "t", not a "d"

-------
"Those who would give up, um, yada yada yada" -Anonymous Coward
[ Parent ]

+1 But.... (2.77 / 18) (#59)
by iheartzelda on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 09:01:13 AM EST

Some thoughts:
If someone took this movie to an isolated village on the Amazon whose inhabitants knew nothing of Christianity, and they showed the Jesus Chainsaw Massacre to them, then all the villagers would wonder is what exactly this snuff film had to do with anything.
I feel like they would more be amazed at the wonders of these "moving pictures." But hey, I could be wrong.

I think we get that calling The Passion of the Christ the Jesus Chainsaw Masacre is a hilarious joke, you don't need to beat it into the ground. I almost think you wrote this whole thing just to use that joke.

While a Christian myself, I don't consider myself from the "religious right", and I certainly don't condone bringing kids to this movie. I don't really care about Janet Jackson's boob either. The problem is the "religious right" (old old people) are the most vocal and powerful of American Christians. John Stewart once said that politics is so screwed up because anyone that would be a decent politician is too busy being a regular person. I feel like that is how Christianity is, in my US-Centric point of view anyway. All of us normal, reasonable Christians are too busy living normal Christians lives - you know, loving people and what not - to be up in arms 80% of the time.

I can say this though, it pisses me off as much as it seems to piss of you though.

Oh one more thing, I think that the argument the "religious right" has against pr0n is that it harms *your* perception of sex and women, and harms the ladies/men who participate in it. I don't know if that is true, but that is what I have heard.

yeah but (1.66 / 6) (#77)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 09:31:04 AM EST

getting advice on pr0n from the religious right is like getting my advice on marriage from a eunuchand i agree wholeheartedly with your john steart remark, and it's really true... 99% of us are just normal decent folk trying to live normal decent lives... and cope with the flaming ideologues from the left and the right doing their best to make our lives uncomfortable

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
I'm a Christian as well (none / 0) (#203)
by mcgrew on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 03:07:23 PM EST

and I consider the "religious right" to be tools of Satan. Literally.

-------
"Those who would give up, um, yada yada yada" -Anonymous Coward
[ Parent ]

Violence and stuff (2.66 / 27) (#67)
by flo on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 09:18:11 AM EST

The Passion was basically a snuff movie. That's why I went to see it, I like violence in movies. But I found the film terribly simplistic, the usual American "Look, these are the *good* guys. See how amazingly good they are? Let me show you again, etc" and "And these are the *bad* guys. Look how EVIL they are! Have you understood yet that they are the bad guys? Let me show you again. Look, these are the *bad* guys, etc". It gets boring real quick.

But as for Christianity's fetish for violence, that's hardly new. They're the only religion I know of that has a torture instrument as their holy symbol. That was really appropriate during the inquisition, btw. Go to any church, and you'll see plenty artwork showing various saints getting splattered. The cathedral of Milan, for example, has a very, um, anatomically precise sculpture of a guy carrying his own skin draped over one shouder like a towel. It's pretty disgusting, all of it. And don't give me this crap about "But we only depict violence against us. We preach peace." Start practising what you preach, and I might believe you one day, but until then...

As for this campaign against porn, it's just plain silly. Grow up, Ashcroft. Besides, I wouldn't be too surprised to find a largish collection of kiddy porn in his home. Wouldn't be the first time with people like him.

As for the Janet Jackson outcry, this is a prime example of Feigned Outrage (tm), which is highly fashionable in populist politics. The idea is that a person (commentator, politician etc) feels he can score brownie points with the (perceived) Moral Majority (also tm) by pretending to be outraged by something "immoral". Other politicians see this, and feel they need to one-up him, and act even more outraged. Positive feed-back occurs, and you have a troupe of monkeys jumping up and down howling in pretended indignation about something utterly harmless. Anybody who dares to point this out is immediately branded as immoral, and can kiss his political career good bye. We Europeans alternate between confused headshaking and belly-laughing at this grotesque spectacle.

Why did I -1 this article? Simply because I find badly written. It has a simple message "violence good + porn ba-a-a-a-d is kinda stupid", which, though sensible, is repeated ad nauseam.
---------
"Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
thanks for shitting all over everything (1.00 / 14) (#75)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 09:28:02 AM EST

anything else you would to relieve yourself on today? or have you done a good enough job so far of enlightening everyone here with your disdain for everything in sight?

we really, are truly happy you could share, you've done us a great service


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

What an ironic response. (nt) (none / 3) (#107)
by bigchris on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 10:15:10 AM EST



---
I Hate Jesus: -1: Bible thumper
kpaul: YAAT. YHL. HAND. btw, YAHWEH wins ;) [mt]
[ Parent ]
hypocrite (nt) (1.00 / 4) (#117)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 10:25:34 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Hey, I'm in good company! (nt) (2.40 / 5) (#125)
by bigchris on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 10:32:42 AM EST



---
I Hate Jesus: -1: Bible thumper
kpaul: YAAT. YHL. HAND. btw, YAHWEH wins ;) [mt]
[ Parent ]
What's the common element? (1.50 / 4) (#234)
by Kax on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 04:30:10 PM EST

between:

We Europeans alternate between confused headshaking and belly-laughing at this grotesque spectacle.

and

People reading tabloids that deal in the bizarre behavior of celebrities?

The answer is...

The second fiddle trying to equalize with the first.

Meanwhile 'we' laugh at you fellows, who are so good at discussion and analysis that action is often a distant dream.

To nitpick at something else:  The Moral Majority as an organization isn't too dominant but the majority of people in this country would indeed rather not see boobs on prime-time TV.  I agree that this is stupid but it's a real political force to deal with.

Here's another one:
They're the only religion I know of that has a torture instrument as their holy symbol.

You lose the right to label American movies 'simplistic' when you make statements like the above.

The movie was based on a book.  You can't fairly claim that it's because of American moviemakers' tendencies that it has well-defined good guys and bad guys.  But of course, you would rather, I'm sure, watch sepia-toned dramas about how four 15 year-olds end up in an apartment together and explore their bisexuality and practice crying and painting and sighing.

In conclusion, I'm hopeful that after you all die due to some mysterious airborne dental disease, we can accelerate the exodus of the most socially weak US citizens to your continent.

Thank you.

[ Parent ]

I also laugh at (none / 3) (#252)
by flo on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 06:06:52 PM EST

people reading about bizarre celebrity behaviour in tabloids. Happy?

Meanwhile 'we' laugh at you fellows, who are so good at discussion and analysis that action is often a distant dream.

Ah, obviously a nipple's brief appearance on TV warrants urgent and immediate action. Let's bomb Tittystan!

I'm not really all that informed about religions (they don't interest me much). So kindly, in your infinite wisdom, provide a list of other religions that employ a torture instrument as their holy symbol.

Despite my ignorance of religions, the fact that The Passion was based on a book did, in fact, occur to me. This book goes on plenty about good guys ("us") and bad guys ("everyone else"), so I'm not surprised to see this highly original literary device feature in the film. I'm just generally bitching about the cinematography, of The Passion in particular, and most (not all) American movies in general, where this literary device is employed with all the subtly of a bulldozer.

The remainder of your comment is too silly to merit further retort.
---------
"Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
[ Parent ]
There's not really any retort here. (none / 1) (#289)
by Kax on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:40:48 PM EST

I also laugh at people reading about bizarre celebrity behaviour in tabloids. Happy? This does not classify as a retort because you have missed the points. The illustration that 'you Europeans' are confused and laugh because you're #2. Ah, obviously a nipple's brief appearance on TV warrants urgent and immediate action. Let's bomb Tittystan! This is meant to contrast your silly laugh-fest at our expense with one that actually has some justification: 'You Europeans' really suck at doing shit, even to the point of disregarding dangers right on your doorstep. Too busy smearing cum all over each other is my guess as to why this is. provide a list of other religions that employ a torture instrument as their holy symbol. I said you were being simplistic. When most people look at the Christian cross, the association is, "Look, there's a symbol of salvation! Look, Jesus died on that!" not "Look! You can use that to torture people!" You were either trying to be cute or you are unbelievably out of touch. Signs point to the former. A more pedantic reason is that you crucify someone to kill them. Most torture doesn't mean death, you usually have to say 'tortured to death' to get that point across and I have never in my life heard what happened to be described in such a way. I'm just generally bitching about the cinematography, of The Passion in particular, and most (not all) American movies in general, where this literary device is employed with all the subtly of a bulldozer. Maybe it's that most Americans are so busy Doing Things that when they want to be entertained, they'd rather not go watch some bullshit about how Hitler loved to send birthday cards and bathed regularly. If you'd stop writing poetry about killing Republican babies, maybe you'd understand that.

[ Parent ]
There's not really any retort here. (2.00 / 4) (#290)
by Kax on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:41:36 PM EST

I also laugh at people reading about bizarre celebrity behaviour in tabloids. Happy?

This does not classify as a retort because you have missed the points.

The illustration that 'you Europeans' are confused and laugh because you're #2.

Ah, obviously a nipple's brief appearance on TV warrants urgent and immediate action. Let's bomb Tittystan!

This is meant to contrast your silly laugh-fest at our expense with one that actually has some justification: 'You Europeans' really suck at doing shit, even to the point of disregarding dangers right on your doorstep.  Too busy smearing cum all over each other is my guess as to why this is.

provide a list of other religions that employ a torture instrument as their holy symbol.

I said you were being simplistic.  When most people look at the Christian cross, the association is, "Look, there's a symbol of salvation!  Look, Jesus died on that!" not "Look!  You can use that to torture people!"  You were either trying to be cute or you are unbelievably out of touch.  Signs point to the former.

A more pedantic reason is that you crucify someone to kill them.  Most torture doesn't mean death, you usually have to say 'tortured to death' to get that point across and I have never in my life heard what happened to be described in such a way.

I'm just generally bitching about the cinematography, of The Passion in particular, and most (not all) American movies in general, where this literary device is employed with all the subtly of a bulldozer.

Maybe it's that most Americans are so busy Doing Things that when they want to be entertained, they'd rather not go watch some bullshit about how Hitler loved to send birthday cards and bathed regularly.  If you'd stop writing poetry about killing Republican babies, maybe you'd understand that.

[ Parent ]

Oh no! We're #2! (none / 2) (#347)
by flo on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 09:07:43 AM EST

The illustration that 'you Europeans' are confused and laugh because you're #2.

Right. Clearly, jumping up and down and howling about an exposed nipple is an integral part of being #1. It shows maturity way beyond what us silly Europeans can even imagine. It must be because we "suck at doing shit". Oog strong! Oog do shit well without needing to think! Oog have big dick! Oog think all the time about Europeans smearing cum on each other.

Concerning crosses and other torture instruments, yes, I know that crucifiction is terminal. The main point about crucifiction, however, is not so much that it's terminal, but that it's a very, very painful way to go. Had Jesus simply been hanged, you probably wouldn't use a noose as holy symbol. My point is, as before, that christian symbolism contains a very prominent element of gory violence and torture. Furthermore, given the actions of prominant christians (notably in your government), this is oddly appropriate, though completely at odds with the official peaceful message of christianity.

Maybe it's that most Americans are so busy Doing Things that when they want to be entertained, they'd rather not go watch some bullshit about how Hitler loved to send birthday cards and bathed regularly. If you'd stop writing poetry about killing Republican babies, maybe you'd understand that.

My, what an erudite comment! And I'm so proud of your Doing Things! How important you are. You also seem to make all sorts of assumptions about how I like to entertain myself. One little hint: read my first comment...
---------
"Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
[ Parent ]
Density. (none / 0) (#547)
by Kax on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 12:51:20 PM EST

Clearly, jumping up and down and howling about an exposed nipple is an integral part of being #1.

You continue to willfully miss the point.  Since you actually got it, I won't bother restating it.

Oog Oog Oog Oog Oog Oog

Assertion central station.  If you want to add more details, feel free.

'sides, everyone knows Oog is a French name.

Had Jesus simply been hanged, you probably wouldn't use a noose as holy symbol.

Who's to say?  Had you been conceived in a house and not in a toxic hostel, you might have two sets of genitalia.

Incidentally, I like how you assume I'm a Christian.

christian symbolism contains a very prominent element of gory violence and torture.

Well, no, you are wrong.  Stop rereading your pamphlet collection and buying Noam Chomsky plane tickets (unless they are one way) and you will start to balance out.

actions of prominant christians (notably in your government), this is oddly appropriate, though completely at odds with the official peaceful message of christianity.

Here's some homework for you.  If you're having a good day you might be able to do it all on the special schoolbus before you get home:

  • Who decides what Christianity's message is?
  • What actions (gory violence and torture related) of the USA might have been different were we a country of atheists?


[ Parent ]
So what was your point? (none / 0) (#556)
by flo on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 04:02:22 PM EST

'sides, everyone knows Oog is a French name.

Is that the best you can do?

Had you been conceived in a house and not in a toxic hostel, you might have two sets of genitalia.

Your ad hominems are really getting lame. Besides, it so happens that I was not conceived in New Jersey.

Incidentally, I like how you assume I'm a Christian.

I'm glad you like it. Are you?

Well, no, you are wrong.

That's odd. I often visit churches and cathedrals (I like the architecture), and many of the paintings, sculptures, mosaics, etc depict the bloody executions of various matyrs. Never seen a painting of St.Sebastian bristling with arrows? I see "The Passion of Christ" as yet just another example of this. Maybe, since there aren't any really old buildings in the USA, your churches are different. If so, count yourself lucky.

Stop rereading your pamphlet collection and buying Noam Chomsky plane tickets (unless they are one way) and you will start to balance out.

More ad hominems... BTW, I didn't know Chomsky issued plane tickets.

Who decides what Christianity's message is?

Wars have been fought and millions have been butchered because of this question. Do you have an answer?

What actions (gory violence and torture related) of the USA might have been different were we a country of atheists?

Probably none. Ever since christianity became a major religion, butchers in command of armies have committed their atrocities, while simultaneously pretending to be good christians. (And analogously, for other religions and other times). Then as now, it helps to point out this hypocricy, so maybe less clueless idiots will support these butchers.
---------
"Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
[ Parent ]
Stayyy on trrrgeetttt (none / 0) (#577)
by Kax on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 12:26:05 PM EST

Is that the best you can do?

I guess you first have to tell me what it is that I was trying to do before I can answer.

Your ad hominems are really getting lame.

Did I insult you?  Read it again, Skippy.

paintings of executions, whatever

Maybe, since there aren't any really old buildings in the USA, your churches are different. If so, count yourself lucky.

Even so, you still have not supported 'Christian symbolism contains a very prominent element of gory violence and torture'

I didn't know Chomsky issued plane tickets.

A deliberate misunderstading on your part.  Cutesy  wootsey!

Wars have been fought and millions have been butchered because of this question.

Well if you are going to impugn our leaders for acting contrary to whatever Christianity's official message is (your words), you have to at least state what that is.

Probably none. Ever since christianity became a major religion

Well then if Christianity doesn't affect what the USA does then what does it matter how much violent symbolism there is in it?!@

[ Parent ]

This is getting boring (none / 0) (#617)
by flo on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 07:57:56 AM EST

Did I insult you? Read it again, Skippy.

Let's see:
"you would rather, I'm sure, watch sepia-toned dramas about how four 15 year-olds end up in an apartment together and explore their bisexuality and practice crying and painting and sighing."

"Too busy smearing cum all over each other is my guess as to why this is."

"...they'd rather not go watch some bullshit about how Hitler loved to send birthday cards and bathed regularly. If you'd stop writing poetry about killing Republican babies, maybe you'd understand that."

"Had you been conceived in a house and not in a toxic hostel, you might have two sets of genitalia."

"Stop rereading your pamphlet collection and buying Noam Chomsky plane tickets (unless they are one way) and you will start to balance out."

"If you're having a good day you might be able to do it all on the special schoolbus before you get home:"
No, these cheap shots are too childish to be insulting. No apology required.

Well if you are going to impugn our leaders for acting contrary to whatever Christianity's official message is (your words), you have to at least state what that is.

I was always under the impression that christianity was supposed to be about love, compassion and peace, being good to strangers, "love your enemies", "turn the other cheek", etc. I know it's silly to take turning the other cheek too literally, but you would expect good christians to at least tend towards good behaviour. At least, this is what many christians have told me.

Well then if Christianity doesn't affect what the USA does then what does it matter how much violent symbolism there is in it?!@

My original point about violent christian symbolism had nothing to do with the USA. But it's not true that christianity doesn't affect the USA. It's an integral part of your culture, part good, part bad. The bad part comes mostly from religious fundamentalism, such as campaigns to stop teaching evolution at schools, and campaigns to clamp down on porn. And your idiot president's claim to be on a god-given mission has won you very few friends in the muslim world. Oh, and the ridiculous moral posturing, which I originally wrote about.

Now, just to do you a favor, I'll return to your orginal point, comparing Europeans (and others) watching the USA with people reading about celebrities in tabloids. No doubt you're very proud of this analogy. Unfortunately, it has two flaws.

1. Tabloid readers actually respect and admire the celebrities.

2. The behaviour of these celebrities has no physical influence on the lives of the tabloid readers. If the celebrities fuck something up, it is highly unlikely that the tabloid readers will have to suffer for it.

Have a nice day.
---------
"Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
[ Parent ]
Not on target. (none / 0) (#618)
by Kax on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 09:07:11 AM EST

I can see I have to quote all the way back up the line with you.

Did I insult you? Read it again, Skippy.

was referring to:

"Had you been conceived in a house and not in a toxic hostel, you might have two sets of genitalia."

This is not actually an insult.  Read it again, as I said.

christianity was supposed to be about love, compassion and peace, being good to strangers, "love your enemies", "turn the other cheek", etc. I know it's silly to take turning the other cheek too literally, but you would expect good christians to at least tend towards good behaviour.

Sometimes a bomb on your city is a necessary component of the above.

Concerning crosses and other torture instruments, yes, I know that crucifiction is terminal. The main point about crucifiction, however, is not so much that it's terminal, but that it's a very, very painful way to go. Had Jesus simply been hanged, you probably wouldn't use a noose as holy symbol. My point is, as before, that christian symbolism contains a very prominent element of gory violence and torture. Furthermore, given the actions of prominant christians (notably in your government), this is oddly appropriate, though completely at odds with the official peaceful message of christianity.

My original point about violent christian symbolism had nothing to do with the USA.

Ok, then let's ignore the above.

Now, just to do you a favor, I'll return to your orginal point, comparing Europeans (and others) watching the USA with people reading about celebrities in tabloids.

The flaws you list aren't relevant because the analogy is not meant to be a complete 1-to-1 mapping.  It was simply to drive home the point that the behavior is due to the fact that you are #2 and we are #1.  Same reason people like tabloids (especially the brits!).  In that regard, it is completely accurate.

[ Parent ]

Wank. #1!!! Wank. Yawn [nt] (none / 0) (#619)
by flo on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 09:19:48 AM EST


---------
"Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
[ Parent ]
I find your sarcasm gratifying. :) (none / 0) (#629)
by Kax on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 10:45:33 AM EST

.

[ Parent ]
Indeed. (3.00 / 5) (#246)
by jmzero on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 05:27:54 PM EST

Look, these are the good guys. See how amazingly good they are

I think they should have spent more time exploring Jesus' darker side - like the Batman comics in the 90's.  
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

geez (2.00 / 11) (#82)
by reklaw on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 09:36:01 AM EST

Shut up about that stupid Passion movie. What the hell did you go to see it for? I refuse to see it, ever.
-
people are talking about it (1.50 / 4) (#87)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 09:45:34 AM EST

if you don't want to talk about it, hold to that and move on, don't comment that you don't want to comment on it ;-P that doesn't make any sense


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
So why do you comment on religious stories? (1.60 / 5) (#104)
by bigchris on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 10:13:10 AM EST

You want to silence all religious voice and debate. Yet you comment on religion all the time, circletimessquare.

---
I Hate Jesus: -1: Bible thumper
kpaul: YAAT. YHL. HAND. btw, YAHWEH wins ;) [mt]
[ Parent ]
i don't want to silence it at all (1.00 / 8) (#109)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 10:18:40 AM EST

i want to kill all organized religion

free the mental slaves

and start a new dawn of true personal spirituality

i want the debate to get more rancourous on organized religion, until even the most blind slave can see his way free

only through debate can this be realized


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Ok then... (2.50 / 4) (#123)
by bigchris on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 10:31:53 AM EST

I take my comment back. But you may as well start a campaign to kill off the women's and men's magazine, along with Fox news, if you're trying to stop brainwashing. And I'll be there cheering you on if you do!

---
I Hate Jesus: -1: Bible thumper
kpaul: YAAT. YHL. HAND. btw, YAHWEH wins ;) [mt]
[ Parent ]
this is the dawning (2.55 / 9) (#130)
by llimllib on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 10:37:52 AM EST

of the age of aquarius, age of aquariuuuuuus. Aquarius!

Peace.
[ Parent ]
you've learned from the queen troll, I see (none / 1) (#184)
by Wah on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 02:01:27 PM EST

i want to kill all organized religion

free the mental slaves

and start a new dawn of true personal spirituality

And it'll work about as well with that attitude as this did.

We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now.

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.

Hate isn't a particularly useful tool for conversion, but then that's not really the point, now is it?
--
'The Matrix' is a better interpretation of quantum mechanics than Copenhagen.
[ Parent ]

Hate is not the opposite of love... (none / 0) (#503)
by kingcnut on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 10:08:07 PM EST

Hate isn't a particularly useful tool for conversion, but then that's not really the point, now is it?
--
Hate is not the opposite of love (indifference is) a point often forgotten and particularly relevant. Hate/Love is of course a very useful tool for conversion - you're trying to force an emotional choice rather than a logical one - there is no logic to joining or following any one particular religion. Frame the process emotionally and logic need not apply - thus USA justified invading Iraq by making an emotion (fear of WMD) beat out the poor logic of sending troops to die for an intangible oily benefit.

At least, seems that way to me.


[ Parent ]

Opposite? Hmm, I'd say inverse (none / 0) (#540)
by Wah on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 10:22:34 AM EST

Hate is not the opposite of love (indifference is) a point often forgotten and particularly relevant.

I disagree.  I would say they are an inverse relationship, at the extremes. On one side is a person would die to save someone they love, on the other they would die to kill someone they hate.  Apathy is not anger, and hate seems to require an anger element.

Hate/Love is of course a very useful tool for conversion - you're trying to force an emotional choice rather than a logical one - there is no logic to joining or following any one particular religion.

Hmm, a curious position, since most religions seem to hold the belief that by expressing the love inherent in their belief, they will gain followers.   Yea, some push it a bit far, but most of those seem a bit confused, IMHO.

I do agree, with you re: emotion and war.  Strong enough emotion can overwhelm any attempts at logic. I think there is a cognitive basis for such an situation, although I haven't read about it specifically yet in the literature (not that I follow it religiously...).  I do, however, see it all the time on the news.

circletimessquare is trolling, as usual.
--
'The Matrix' is a better interpretation of quantum mechanics than Copenhagen.
[ Parent ]

There's a problem here (none / 1) (#202)
by mcgrew on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 03:04:31 PM EST

I am arguing with a blind man about the existance of the color red. It's really pointless.

-------
"Those who would give up, um, yada yada yada" -Anonymous Coward
[ Parent ]

That's a bullshitter's argument. (none / 1) (#222)
by toulouse on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 03:52:49 PM EST

He could, quite correctly and justifiably, claim exactly the same.


--
'My god...it's full of blogs.' - ktakki
--


[ Parent ]
many Christian groups make the same criticisms (2.81 / 16) (#136)
by big fat idiot on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 10:42:15 AM EST

I have seen many Eastern Orthodox priests, a good number of Catholic priests and bishops, some Christian scientists, a lot of Anabaptist groups, some Angligans and other Christians make these criticisms that Mel Gibson's film:
  1. Portrays the crucifixion outside of the context of the Gospel, and therefore, offers a distorted snapshot
  2. Is far too vicariously violent.
  3. Is not uplifiting
I have also seen representatives of most of the aforementioned groups opine that Ashcroft is rather misguided as his campaign to reform the US through such actions as draping clothes over the statue of the semi-nude Lady Justice in the the Justice Department.

Jesus, who he really was (none / 2) (#193)
by Steeltoe on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 02:49:19 PM EST

I haven't seen the movie myself, and I'd rather skip it because violence only breeds disturbance and distress. Besides I find it rather boring these days. I can understand that people can see the spirituality in it. Just as some yogis can endure alot of physical stress to reach higher states of consciousness, combined with Christs ultimate love for humanity.

I have been told a slightly different version of who Jesus really was. Christians tend to focus alot on his death and ressurection, as evident by this very movie.

Who Jesus really was, he was a great life-teacher. He has shown in so many ways how we can become more aware of ourselves and eachother. "Do onto others what you would like others do onto you." It is so simple, yet sums it all up and is very active. He surely both taught and lived life like this.

In his ressurection, he did not actually "save" us. Instead he showed us what is possible for everyone, what we already are. That we are all immortal beings, divine sparks, sons and daughters of God. If only we chose to live in harmony, unity, love, understanding, compassion, etc, etc, instead of constantly thinking "what about ME?". We will see it more clearly and "death" will only be what it really is, a transition between worlds. We will experience God / higher states of consciousness.

I never got the logic of the story of Jesus, until I stumbled onto this gem. Suddenly it all fit together in my head and heart :-)

As I said, this is not really a strictly christian version (but could be), but an interesting one to me. I hope it has been to you too. I don't say this is the whole truth, or others are wrong or I am right. Take this as inspiration or whatever you want, that is where this comes from, and love. Judge everything with your own heart, let the mind be silent for a minute..

Explore the Art of Living

[ Parent ]

who he really was? (none / 0) (#226)
by big fat idiot on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 04:03:14 PM EST

The subject of your title is incompatible with your conclusion that you don't mean to say that others or wrong or that you are right.

That said, a good deal of your post dovetails nicely with the incarnational theology of the early Christian Church. God became man so that man might become God. This view taken on its own quickly becomes a distortion of the teachings of Christ, but taken in the greater context of Christian doctrine is very essential to the Gospel.

[ Parent ]

Who he was... (none / 2) (#257)
by curunir on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 06:25:03 PM EST

As an agnostic, the version that makes the most sense to me is the one that explains the compilation of the bible by citing as context the state of the Roman empire at the time of Constantine.

As it's been related to me, Jesus was simply a mortal prophet. His teachings were very popular (for obvious reasons, his message is a very uplifting one), and spread throughout the Roman empire. 400 or so years later, the schism between Christianity and Roman polytheism was destroying the Roman empire from within. Constantine made a radical decision to switch the official state religion of Rome to Christianity (explains why the Vatican, center of Catholicism, is across town from the Roman forum.)

The decision to switch to Christianity was made with an eye towards never having to make another such decision in the future. The bible was compiled from all accounts which deified Jesus' life/death in such a fashion that it set up the Roman Catholic church as the sole conduit for worship. Alternate accounts of his life/death were ignored and those who chose to believe alternate accounts of his life were branded heretics (from the Latin haereticus meaning able to choose.) The word Catholic even bears out this theory as it is derived from the Latin Catholicus meaning universal. Catholicism was created to be the universal, unifying religion for the Roman empire.

I mentioned above that I'm agnostic. I did so purposefully since, I used to want very badly to belive in Christianity but was never able to accept the traditional biblical story of Jesus' life/death. Since hearing this alternate theory, I've been able to see the bible as more of a historical artifact that was created for a purpose. However it's also a historical record of Jesus' teachings, which remain entirely valid even if their origin is not the son of god. I won't say I feel that I have everything figured out, but I'm much closer to accepting this modified version of Christianity than I ever would be to accepting the traditional, biblical account.

[ Parent ]
women have souls? (none / 0) (#366)
by maluke on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 12:06:04 PM EST

answer to that question was given by voting cardinal or whoever 'responsible' back then something like in year 600.

it's a documented fact and is <u>really</u> true (my refernce is not online sorry). that kind of supports the story of bible and cristianity you told.

[ Parent ]

ugh (none / 2) (#372)
by Battle Troll on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 12:21:43 PM EST

Alternate accounts of his life/death were ignored and those who chose to believe alternate accounts of his life were branded heretics (from the Latin haereticus meaning able to choose.) The word Catholic even bears out this theory as it is derived from the Latin Catholicus meaning universal. Catholicism was created to be the universal, unifying religion for the Roman empire.

All the fables of this sort tend to forget about the Greek, Egyptian, and Syrian churches, all of which were at some point more prominent than Rome.

Rome wasn't a center of Christian power until Charlemagne. As late as the seventh century, the Byzantine Emperor was capable of sending troops to arrest the Pope and send him into exile.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

more info please (none / 0) (#575)
by Battle Troll on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 10:41:36 AM EST

I used to want very badly to belive in Christianity but was never able to accept the traditional biblical story of Jesus' life/death.

Why is that?
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

My Beliefs (none / 0) (#645)
by curunir on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 06:57:34 PM EST

Not sure whether you're asking why I wanted very badly to believe or why I wasn't able to, so I'll answer both.

The reason I envied people who were religious was that they seemed so much more content in their lives. It was as if they didn't have to worry about what life was about. The ability to simply live life and be happy with the expected outcome was something that seemed, to me, easier than my own experience.

It would be like approximating Pi with the number 3. For 99% of all calculations, it will give you a pretty close approximation of the actual answer as well. But I always felt compelled to find a more exact approximation even though the end conclusion is virtually the same.

There's a lot about the bible that gives me that "something's missing" feeling. For one, I've studied a fair amount of Egyptian history. Not enough to claim to be an Egyptologist, but enough to realize that the biblical version is factually inaccurate. I also find it hard to believe that the vengeful God of the old testament is the same loving god of the new testament. I find it much easier to believe that it was made that way to make the religion more accessible. People like to be told that everything is going to be OK, not that God will smite them if they make even minor mistakes. And, as I said in my previous post, I'm much more ready to believe that Jesus was a mortal prophet as opposed to the son of God. Call it Occam's Razor or whatever, but it just seems more plausible.

Yet, enumerating these inconsistancies helps me to strengthen my beliefs. It's like I've discovered that while the bible says Pi is 3, it's really 3.14. I still have that "something's missing" feeling, but there's a lot less missing. And it feels better than simply rejecting the Pi is 3 premise and starting from scratch.

[ Parent ]
Are you this ignorant, circletimessquare? (2.00 / 17) (#141)
by Adam Rightmann on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 10:44:58 AM EST

The essence of Christianity is that Jesus sacrificed himself to a bitter, torturous, painful death in order to save mankind. The Passion of The Christ is just showing this.

The love of Jesus Christ is that He loved mankind so much he was willing to be tortured for us.

Evidently yes (1.42 / 7) (#143)
by zen troll on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 10:47:18 AM EST

He is that ignorant

[ Parent ]
Really? (none / 2) (#148)
by bradasch on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 11:01:51 AM EST

So you enjoyed and was touched by the pools of blood, Christ's ribs showing after endless scenes of pure gore?

Or, like anyone human enough, you were disgusted by the high level of details?

Saying that "The essence of Christianity is that Jesus sacrificed himself to a bitter, torturous, painful death in order to save mankind" does not make a goreful movie about the Passion beautiful.

[ Parent ]
You present a false dichotomy (none / 1) (#156)
by big fat idiot on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 11:14:32 AM EST

Perhaps some people feel the movie is such a compelling movie about the Passion precisely because they are disgusted by the graphic violence.

[ Parent ]
Human enough? (none / 1) (#176)
by bradasch on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 01:23:09 PM EST

You would have a point if the graphic violence displayed wasn't so exagerated. That kind of level and gory details are just too much.

The good moments of the movie were those of emotion displayed. The relation with Maria, the suffering of the passing people and the disciples, those were indeed touching. They were spoiled miserably by blood spurts.

[ Parent ]
My point stands (none / 0) (#225)
by big fat idiot on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 03:57:51 PM EST

The post I was replying to implied that in order to derive benefit from the movie, the viewer had to enjoy the gratuitous violence. That is not the case, a viewer can be disturbed by the movie and still find it beneficial.

[ Parent ]
silly me (none / 1) (#406)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 01:27:02 PM EST

i thought it was his message of compassion and tolerance in the face of cruelty and corruption

gee, what a wacko i am

i guess i should embrace his evisceratude as the central element of his contribution to mankind instead ;-P

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

About the title (2.75 / 12) (#147)
by Bill Melater on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 10:59:37 AM EST

I was looking forward to a detailed discussion plumbing the depths, as it were, of pornography. Instead it's all about this Jebus guy getting, err, nailed.

Has anyone pointed out that the Romans crucified hundreds of people in exactly the same way, but no one seems to give a shit about their pain&suffering?

As a minor nit, I don't think the phrase "plain vanilla sexual intercourse" applies to anything Jenna has ever been in ... I saw "Kobe loves Jenna" just last week. Now there's a movie for ya! Mmmm, Kobe Tai ... hold on I'll be right back ...



Romans crucified hundreds (none / 0) (#201)
by mcgrew on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 03:02:07 PM EST

Yes, but only one of them was crucified for me.

-------
"Those who would give up, um, yada yada yada" -Anonymous Coward
[ Parent ]

The Romans didn't crucify any of them for *you* (none / 3) (#215)
by Bill Melater on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 03:22:26 PM EST

They did it because it was a fairly effective way to deal with thieves, bandits, and troublemakers.

[ Parent ]
plumbing the depths! (none / 0) (#284)
by Subtillus on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:18:07 PM EST

That's rich. thanks.
-S

[ Parent ]
Amen, brother: AMEN! [nt] (1.66 / 6) (#152)
by toulouse on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 11:05:28 AM EST


--
'My god...it's full of blogs.' - ktakki
--


+1 FP, I agree with you for once. (2.42 / 7) (#153)
by bakuretsu on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 11:10:25 AM EST

If anyone out there wants to get a clear picture of how the dominant religions of our time have gone astray, both from the collective morality of the world and from their own messages, you should pick up Joseph Campbell's The Power of Myth.

He is a little new agey sometimes, and slightly kooky, but what he has to say about the myth of Christ as it relates to the state of the world today is a poignant observation from a man hailed as one of the world's foremost authorities on mythology. The Power of Myth interviews with Bill Moyers were recorded ten years ago, and still hold relevance.

We are not reversing in our steadfast course to self-misunderstanding through religiosity.

-- Airborne
    aka Bakuretsu
    The Bailiwick -- DESIGNHUB 2004

The malignancy of campbell (2.60 / 5) (#161)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 11:34:28 AM EST

While I liked the Power of Myth (both the book and the Bill Moyers interviews), the problem of Campbell is that he always looks at the story regardless of context, as though the context always is dispensable.

In that regard, he does anthropology a great disservice. He weighs each myth equally in his own mind, not considering what the myths mean to the people who practice the religion. His biggest disservice is against christianity; what he calls myth even the earliest followers called history. In the interviews, he basically says that treating Christ as history is mistaken.

But to do so also means to dismiss a priori a substantial body of archaelogical evidence, some of which is circumstantial and much of which is controversial. Nevertheless, there is some evidence.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that the Christ story is true. I may believe it, but your belief in it is up to you. But to look at Josephus, and say that he was wrong, to look at the sepulchre of John and say that it's inscriptions are mistaken or not applicable, to look at the Roman records and say that Pilate's and Herod's inclusions are historical fictions... well, I think dismissing it all completely is perhaps premature and dogmatism of a different variety.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Indeed. (none / 1) (#197)
by bakuretsu on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 02:53:21 PM EST

As I said, he sometimes comes off as a kook. Nevertheless, I think the main thrust of his message--at least regarding the Christian myth--is that we've divurged too far from that myth in our literal interpretations. While the original story of Jesus may have been historially accurate, the Bible we have today, filtered through ages of translations and Church-sponsored censorships is hardly what it was then.

The Bible was written hundreds of years after Christ's death by people who'd heard the stories. Did you ever play that game "telephone" when you were a kid?

-- Airborne
    aka Bakuretsu
    The Bailiwick -- DESIGNHUB 2004
[ Parent ]

well (none / 0) (#227)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 04:07:33 PM EST

one of those little freaks of history is that we have more empirical information about Jesus than we do of Socrates.

And while telephone is a very interesting game, it has to do with the vagueness of word of mouth. The written word (and the writings began very quickly after his death, even according to the most skeptical historians) has a way of ruining that game.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
However... (none / 0) (#431)
by DavidTC on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 02:57:29 PM EST

..no one bases their life on Socrates.

The only think I do in real life that even has any connection to Socrates is the common use of the Socratic method of teaching, and that works perfectly well or not he actually existed.

The rest of his 'existence' is just something you might randomly learn in history or philosophy class, and not really care about past getting the test answer right.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

speak for yourself ;-) (none / 0) (#446)
by SocratesGhost on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 03:45:15 PM EST

obviously, his existence has great worth for me. Mark Twain himself found that history had only two heroes: Socrates and Joan of Arc because these were people who lived and died for their beliefs.

Now, if they were myth, then our admiration of them is weaker because fictional characters are easily made extraordinary. But because they were real, their stories are more spectacular and meaningful.

Now, if you say that God only metaphorically sacrficed himself for you, this is much weaker than saying that God actually sacrificed for you. This is why that context is so important and to remove this context means to misunderstand the nature of the belief.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Eh? (none / 0) (#633)
by bakuretsu on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 11:40:16 AM EST

Didn't Mahatma Gandhi die for his beliefs? Or was Samuel Clemens only including white people?

-- Airborne
    aka Bakuretsu
    The Bailiwick -- DESIGNHUB 2004
[ Parent ]
He was... (none / 0) (#635)
by DavidTC on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 02:07:55 PM EST

...probably only including people who died before he died, in an effort to be less confusing and not potentionally destroying the fabric of the universe.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]
Yeah, shit. (none / 0) (#654)
by bakuretsu on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 10:14:17 PM EST

I hate it when that happens. Just yesterday I tripped and fell through a tear in the space-time continuum (if you wish to call it that) and found myself in a strange new universe not entirely unlike our own, but one in which Samuel Clemens had died many years after Mahatma Gandhi. Luckily, I was able to get Internet access and post some retarded comments to K5. That was a close one!

With the Clemens quote aside, there are plenty of people who stand as examples of personal sacrifice in the name of ideology. Those who fast for lent are among them. Does that make our world a better place to live in? I don't know.

-- Airborne
    aka Bakuretsu
    The Bailiwick -- DESIGNHUB 2004
[ Parent ]

Really? (none / 0) (#440)
by unDees on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 03:20:05 PM EST

His Masks of God series of books was intensely focused on context -- the archeology and history surrounding the great religious movements. You have to remember that The Power of Myth was quite a bit edited down from the television interviews. And the TV format is not conducive to being exhaustive, anyhow: you've got to pick and choose examples just to narrow things down.

I also didn't get the impression that he was disrespectful of Christianity (in fact, the interviews and books had the opposite effect for me).

Your account balance is $0.02; to continue receiving our quality opinions, please remit payment as soon as possible.
[ Parent ]

You're absolutely right, but -1 because: (1.63 / 11) (#159)
by Mr.Surly on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 11:25:02 AM EST

"The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre" is retarded.  Completely fucked up an otherwise good article.

Also, it's Op-Ed NT (none / 1) (#182)
by sllort on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 01:48:14 PM EST


--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
no, it's funny (nt) (none / 0) (#405)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 01:24:24 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Interesting link (2.71 / 7) (#165)
by stuaart on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 12:09:06 PM EST

Try reading this Ship of Fools article. It appears that some Christians also see the hypocrisy.

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


That dog wont hunt. (2.07 / 13) (#167)
by imrdkl on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 12:19:55 PM EST

First off, the depiction of Christ's suffering and death pales in comparison to the violence to be found in other R-rated films, and if some kid's parents want take them to see it, then that's none of your damn business.

Next, and as I pointed out before, the thing that pissed off the American public about the exposed breast was that it was exposed in prime time, and more insidiously, via an apparantly forceful act. The clothing was ripped away by the male singer, giving 100 million superbowl-charged teenage boys the idea that forcefully removing a woman's clothing is somehow OK.

I'm amused, but not surprised, by the sheer desperation of the opposition to this film -- and this critique is perhaps the most ridiculous I've seen so far. Almost universally, the argument is one based on how damaging it will be to "the children", when the same audience gleefully plays video games with exploding heads, severed limbs, and death everywhere you look. The only thing that I can come up with, regarding the apparant dichotomy in their (your) actions, is that they (you) know that the film is a true account. If so, then be thankful for the blood shed for you. If not, then what are you whining about?

This isn't just a straw man argument, it's a friggin' straw couple. -1

violent agreement (none / 3) (#169)
by gstover on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 12:48:24 PM EST

imrdkl, It sounds like you are actually in violent agreement with circletimessquare, even if you don't like his delivery. Check it out:

You say that seeing the violence in PotC won't hurt kids because they already play violent video games & watch violent movies.

circletimessquare (& a bunch of us here) say if it's okay to show violence in PotC, why do some lawmakers & Christian religious leaders make such a fuss about violence in other R-rated movies & in video games? (circletimessquare also mentions sex, but let's keep it simple by sticking with violence for now.)

I notice that you don't approve of violence in video games or R-rated movies, but you are not saying that they should be outlawed while violence in PotC is somewhow healthy to watch. You don't have a double-standard. The Gory, gory, hallelujah article shows that at least Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell do have a double-standard.

gene



[ Parent ]
Er, no (none / 1) (#174)
by imrdkl on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 01:07:55 PM EST

That is not what I said. What I said was that arguing against the movie based on violent content is ridiculous. I don't give a flip one way or the other about violence or R-rated movies, I watch plenty of them myself, and I would have a big problem with outlawing them. Neither do I care about breasts being shown on television, they do it all the time where I live, but as of right now, today, it violates laws in the US to do so in prime time. Change the law, but don't whine about it - thats my point.

Violently ripping the clothes off of a lady to expose breasts in prime time, however, does piss me off.

[ Parent ]

Re: Er, no (none / 0) (#266)
by drsmithy on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 06:50:54 PM EST

Violently ripping the clothes off of a lady to expose breasts in prime time, however, does piss me off.

Assuming it was consensual, why ?

[ Parent ]

the difference (none / 2) (#179)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 01:30:12 PM EST

You make the mistake of totality.

Suppose I'm one of those people who does want to reduce violence on the screen. Further suppose that I'm one of those who wants my child to see Passion.

This is only an inconsistent position if you think my desire to reduce onscreen violence is a desire to eliminate it from the screens altogether. And I don't think anyone wants that.

Movies have come a long way to increasing the gore and violence in movies. For example, the classic western Shane was ostensibly against violence. The gunfights were considered the most horrifying bloody exhibitions in the day; that's because the director wanted to make an impact on the audience that guns are not toys, they're violent and horrible, etc. So, he used the medium to provide a visual of the horrors of weaponry to those who idolized them. But look at it with contemporary eyes and it doesn't compare with almost any 30 second segment of Die Hard. The violence we have now is ultra-extreme. The message of Shane is obscured.

What this means is that if you want to use the imagery of violence to actually make an impact on the audience, you almost have to go to the degrees that Mel Gibson took. It's unfortunate, but it's a sign of the times.

Christians don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We know that violence is out there and will be in the cinema, but we also know that some violence has meaning, even profound meaning and some is just gladiatorialism. Guess which variety we want to curtail?

But then lets bring the argument back into pornography. Ashcroft isn't designing new laws. He can't. He will be enforcing existing ones, though. Don't like it? Take it up with Capital Hill. But I think we can all agree that if we want a system that has barriers to prevent children from access (which is mostly what parents are concerned about), that we have no system in place. Hell, they show explicit pictures on the sign up pages! We do all sorts of things to limit access in the brick and mortar world, but as children go online in increasing numbers we place it all back on the parents again to monitor their children's behavior? That's ridiculous. No, we enforce laws against the stores to prevent the sale of tobacco to minors. No, we enforce laws which prevent minors from entering (or working at) strip joints against the management of those places. No, we enforce laws that prevent indiscriminate child labor against those who would trade in it. We legally mandate many different types of behaviors; why not pornography if we recognize it as a legitimate parental issue?

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
the classic western Shane (none / 0) (#199)
by mcgrew on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 02:58:23 PM EST

On the contrary, the bloodless "Oh! You got me!" in the "classic" westerns trivializes violence by sanitizing it.

By contrast, The Patriot, or Saving Private Ryan truly are anti-violence in their extrame depiction of violence.

You should contrast Shane with a contemporary western- I'm thinking Unforgiven. The shooting of the cowboys comes to mind- the ex-killers inability to shoot; the kid's reaction when it comes time to actually pull the trigger, and the afterefect on his psyche later.

Although I'll admit, the icicle in the eyeball in Die Hard 2 was a bit gratituous...

-------
"Those who would give up, um, yada yada yada" -Anonymous Coward
[ Parent ]

you may be right (none / 1) (#229)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 04:10:25 PM EST

I wouldn't have characterized Patriot as anti-violence, perhaps. Sure, he was reluctant, but we could take the "moral" of the story as every person has their breaking point. That's no more anti-violence than people who wait for marriage are considered anti-sex.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Whoa dude. (none / 2) (#353)
by gzt on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 10:35:36 AM EST

That's no more anti-violence than people who wait for marriage are considered anti-sex.

Be careful, man, most people on this site can't wrap their heads around that [alas].

[ Parent ]

So why aren't Christians doing something about it? (none / 0) (#356)
by Eccles on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 10:49:59 AM EST

But I think we can all agree that if we want a system that has barriers to prevent children from access (which is mostly what parents are concerned about), that we have no system in place.

NetNanny? SurfWatch? HOSTS/eDexter?

Blocking technology is out there if you want it. If the existing ones are not good enough, how about instead of focusing on laws, Christians fund development of a better one?

[ Parent ]
did you even read the last paragraph? (none / 0) (#363)
by SocratesGhost on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 12:00:19 PM EST

Parents can lock their kids up inside their house to make sure that the bad men stay away. That's no way to raise a kid, though.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Um, yeah... (none / 0) (#469)
by Eccles on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 05:35:54 PM EST

In your last paragraph, you said "Hell, they show explicit pictures on the sign up pages!" I can't see how sign-up pages could be referring to anything other than web sites, so that's the focus of my response. Moreover, everything Ashcroft et al seem to be doing is focused on porn in the home (cable, the web), save possibly theatre movies, which have ratings systems and general anti-NC-17 self-censorship anyway.

[ Parent ]
the part you didn't respond to (none / 0) (#552)
by SocratesGhost on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 01:38:01 PM EST

was that we're handling pornography on the internet in the same we that we handle everything else: put the responsibility back on the person who is offering the service to act responsibly. This is why we have food labeling laws, drug testing, restrictions on alcohol, etc. We don't absolve the suppliers because of things that may be outside the person's control. As a result, we hold the supplier responsible for their actions.

So, how is porn online different? Because we have filters? We have filters in the real world, too: it's called a door lock and if you've ever used any of these filters you know how crippling they can be.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
How it is different (none / 0) (#637)
by Eccles on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 03:05:44 PM EST

So, how is porn online different? Because we have filters?

No, because it is international. If someone from Afghanistan can browse your site, should the women be required to wear burqas? I doubt the Saudis would allow most of the red carpet gowns from the Oscars.

We have filters in the real world, too: it's called a door lock and if you've ever used any of these filters you know how crippling they can be.

I just don't see the parallel. Are you really that concerned a web filter might, before being adjusted, not let your kid go to the Scunthorpe United website? A decent set of filters could provide gradually reduced levels of restriction, as a six year old probably doesn't need to know the full details about breast cancer while a fourteen year old might be given a lot more info.

[ Parent ]
you're flat out wrong (none / 1) (#400)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 01:17:42 PM EST

i would like you to justify your statement "the depiction of Christ's suffering and death pales in comparison to the violence to be found in other R-rated films"

dude, it was pure bloody evisceration from beginning to end

do you deny this?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You're flat out silly (none / 0) (#483)
by imrdkl on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 06:28:20 PM EST

If you think I'm interested in taking this any further with you. The crucifixion actually was a terrible, bloody way to go. Deal with it.

[ Parent ]
how loopy can someone be (none / 1) (#534)
by circletimessquare on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 05:51:41 AM EST

OF COURSE IT WAS A TERRIBLE WAY TO GO

ERGO

IT WAS THE MOST VIOLENT FUCKING MOVIE EITHER OF US HAVE SEEN IN A LONG TIME

insert patently obvious observation into addled mind...

loopdeloopdeloopdeloop...

"no it wasn't"

;-P

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Not quite (none / 0) (#571)
by imrdkl on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 04:35:06 AM EST

It was the death of one man who knew he was going to die, and did so willingly. Keep that in mind.

[ Parent ]
the obvious escapes the blind (none / 0) (#576)
by circletimessquare on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 10:49:22 AM EST

"It was the death of one man who knew he was going to die, and did so willingly. Keep that in mind."

ok, i'll keep that it mind

can you keep something in mind?

IT WAS A BLOODY FUCKING ULTRAVIOLENT WAY TO GO... insert your observation here... "he knew he was going to die."

oH! i get it now! it was bloody ultraviolent... but HE KNEW HE WAS GOING TO DIE

wow!

that's amazing!

look at that!

suddenly 2 hours of blood and guts is not 2 hours and blood and guts... why?

because he knew he was going to die!

wow!

what the fuck are you smoking?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Remember also (none / 0) (#597)
by imrdkl on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 08:52:43 PM EST

There was not a single broken bone in his body.

[ Parent ]
and the troll eclipses the message (nt) (none / 0) (#642)
by circletimessquare on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 06:40:01 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Huh? (none / 0) (#664)
by imrdkl on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 04:11:50 AM EST

Dork.

[ Parent ]
Censensual Violence? (none / 0) (#621)
by jameth on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 09:23:57 AM EST

You likely endorse consensual sex, but apparently not consensual violence. Would you take issue if I decided to play bloody knuckles for an hour? Blood will be drawn, it will be violent, and it will be messy. I feel like it. Maybe you should consider actually accepting the choices of others.

[ Parent ]
hey you fucking retard (none / 0) (#640)
by circletimessquare on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 05:18:56 PM EST

I HAVE NO FUCKING PROBLEM WITH THAT

i have a problem WITH THE HYPOCRISY

did you read the fucking story?

are you so fucking retarded that you can read all this shit and deduce that MY FUCKING CENTRAL POINT is to be used against me?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

IF BLATANT OPED POSTS YOU AS EDITORS HAVE FAILED (1.72 / 11) (#170)
by sllort on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 12:57:52 PM EST

Think about it. Anyone who votes for this article as "media news" rather than as an opinion piece (which any third grader can tell you it is) is making an editorial mistake that only Jason Blair could be proud of. Never again can any of you in good faith criticize incompetent newspaper editors or jounalistic malfeasance ever again, having yourselves been part of a such a gigantic travesty.

Please, don't destroy k5 by voting this up.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.

IF BLATENT OPED POSTS YUO AS EDITORS HAVE FAILED (1.60 / 5) (#190)
by Jayson Blair on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 02:37:28 PM EST

A comment by Jayson Blair,
New York Times Cultural Attache to K5
All sections (c) Jayson Blair, 2004

Think about it. Anyone who votes for this posting as "-1 Discourage" rather than as a "+3 Encourage" (which any third grader can tell you it is worthy of) is making a comment-rating mistake that only $SOMEOTHERWRITERWHOISNTME could be proud of. Never again can any of you in good faith criticize incompetent k5 commentators or internetastic malfeasance ever again, having yourselves been part of a such a gigantic travesty.

Please don't destroy k5 by rating this up.



[ Parent ]
Flic+music+porn==Media (none / 0) (#196)
by SlashDread on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 02:52:57 PM EST

peace

"/Dread"

[ Parent ]

Facts: Media. Opinion: Op-Ed (none / 0) (#200)
by sllort on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 03:00:09 PM EST

you lose. play again?
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
It's circletimessquare. (none / 1) (#232)
by mcc on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 04:22:34 PM EST

For some reason the site readership tends not to attempt to apply any rules or editorial standards to him whatsoever. He's a special case.

[ Parent ]
in what way am i "special"? ;-P (nt) (none / 1) (#397)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 01:14:46 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
omg! i'm single-handedly destroying kuro5hin! (none / 2) (#396)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 01:13:05 PM EST

won't someone please think of the children!

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
the real purpose of this movie (none / 3) (#171)
by gstover on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 01:00:55 PM EST

Is it possible Gibson made this movie ultra violent because after the right-wing anti-violence peeps said it was great, they couldn't argue that entertainment violence contributes to real-life violence wouldn't have a leg to stand on?

gene (atheist who chose not to see the movie because it would be too violent for me -- yes, really)



atheism (none / 1) (#242)
by speek on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 05:12:49 PM EST

Violence is a lot scarier for us atheists, if you think about it.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

yeah, right (none / 0) (#274)
by Penrod Pooch on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:11:37 PM EST

Mel Gibson is a right-wing fundie himself.

[ Parent ]
mel gibson (none / 0) (#395)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 01:11:35 PM EST

fundie mole for the free love crowd

lol ;-P


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Holy shit, cts (2.25 / 8) (#172)
by Kasreyn on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 01:02:33 PM EST

I'm actually beginning to like you. :-P

+1FP, well said. I like to avoid appearing as a stereotypical liberal, but I have to admit it thrills me to see someone stick it to ultraconservative jackholes like this.

When this FP's, I know of several forums I'm planning to link it to.


-Kasreyn

P.S. Did you devise the name "Jesus Chainsaw Massacre"?


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
Slate (none / 0) (#320)
by RecursiveWasabi on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 11:40:30 PM EST

I recall seeing the term 'Jesus Chainsaw Massacre' on MSN Slate being applied to the movie, very soon after it came out. At best, cts came up with it independently.

[ Parent ]
i thought i read it in the village voice... (none / 0) (#394)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 01:10:31 PM EST

but now that i think about it, i don't know where i heard it from...

maybe at this indian restaurant i went to with 2 friends in march when we were talking about this movie, i think someone uttered it... yeah, i think that is where i came across the name

but no, it's not original

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

+1, boobs AND jesus gets killed [nt] (1.69 / 13) (#173)
by warrax on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 01:07:50 PM EST



-- "Guns don't kill people. I kill people."
Reminds me of my Peace Corps tour in Haiti. (1.50 / 10) (#178)
by ninja rmg on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 01:28:05 PM EST

All started last summer. I fell in with a crowd of comparative literature graduate students. Started going to punk shows four nights a week, attending Woolf-esque "parties," etc. Soon enough I was spending every night face down in a stairwell at the library. Back in October, though, I decided I finally had to clean up.

If I went into rehabilitation, I'd have to drop out, and anyway, they'd probably kick me out anyway, so I decided to just try to quit straight up. The couple of weeks after that are sort of a blur... spent most of the time in bed shivering, throwing up, convulsing... usual withdrawal type stuff.

Well by December, it was getting a bit better, but I could barely get to sleep at night. I'd wake up suddenly, soaked with sweat... disgusting really. Not good at all. So one of these comp lit people was going to Haiti with Peace Corps and I guess I had somehow signed up with him back in the summer, though I didn't have a clear recollection of doing so. Good credentials, Ivy League school... somehow they did not notice what a complete junky I was.

So in January, I go with this kid to Haiti with Peace Corps. Lots of violence and fighting, lawlessness. Children dying in the streets. It was pretty bad. At the same time, maybe because of poor nutrition or something, it got harder to sleep and I started shivering at random times again. Obviously I couldn't shoot up, and I really couldn't take it anymore. Had to do something...

So I was walking through town distributing sacks of rice to families with this buddy of mine when some shady looking Haitian guy calls me over. He starts talking about how I "don't look so good" and whatever, says he has something that'll make me feel better and to meet him later that night. So I'm thinking, whatever, it's not like I'll be able to get to sleep anyway.

Go back later that night and the guy's there. He takes me to this dilapidated building. We go into this room in the back and there's this fourteen year old girl sitting there on this makeshift futon. So I'm like, what the fuck... who is this guy? The guy started saying something about twenty dollars American and I don't know with the shock of the situation and my general brokenness I practically passed out. The next thing I knew, I was on the floor.

I wake up the next morning and I'm on this futon thing with this girl next to me... I felt much better, but at the same time, what the fuck... This girl is like fourteen. I'm still pretty groggy though. Then that guy comes in and he's like "five hundred dollars American and she's yours." Well, I got my clothes on and got the hell out of there.

That day, I was out distributing food and water again with my comp lit pal. He's been looking at me funny all day (and with good reason). I was unusually chipper and together... not shivering and strung out like usual. So we're walking down the main street in town and suddenly this guy throws something at a bunch of military police and there's this explosion. One of them took almost all of it. He was a fucking mess. Leg blown off, shrapnel all up his side, neck laid open. He died within minutes. The rest escaped most of it apparently and started shooting back. Suddenly there was this big fire fight. We hid behind a car and we could hear all the kids screaming and gunshots and whatever. When it was over, there were like ten dead civilians.. two of them looked like they were with the attackers, three were just little kids...

So I go back to my tent and find some money. I'm shivering again, not thinking straight again... I go to the building with the shady guy and buy the girl and make plans to get her back to school with me (which is a much more complicated story... maybe some other time). Now she lives in my room with me.

It's really better.. I'm feeling better and she will never have to worry about shrapnel or any of the other crazy shit going on in her old neighborhood. It's funny. Spends all her time watching MTV... I hate MTV...



wtf? you lost me ninja rmg! ;-P (nt) (none / 1) (#393)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 01:07:26 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Cool story. (none / 0) (#424)
by Kiyooka on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 02:38:23 PM EST

Did you mean to post this in fiction, or did this really happen?

I'm guessing it's probably fiction, considering how incredibly difficult it'd be to justify taking a 14yr old local girl back with you on a military excursion.

[ Parent ]

Came across this on IMDB (2.83 / 6) (#183)
by misfit13b on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 01:54:01 PM EST

I thought that this comment's comparison (not written by me) between Passion and Day of the Woman was interesting, so I thought I'd pass it along.

Oh Lord, Not Another Rant (2.44 / 9) (#188)
by Mr Badger on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 02:08:51 PM EST

"Your blindness so complete it is deafening"?

You were sitting on a handful of interesting stories. You could have written about Bruce Taylor. One of your linked articles says he's not a "bluenose religious conservative" and yet he's the point-man for Ashcroft's anti-porn initiative. You could have found out more about him. It would have been news to most of us and, I think, more interesting. You also breezed over the fact that, as stated in one of your linked articles, Ashcroft is launching this initiative at the same time his boss, President Bush, is taking large campaign donations from executives at Comcast, a company that broadcasts pornography on its cable system. If this isn't outright hypocrisy, it at least suggests a conflict of interest. This too would have been an actual story.

Instead, you've rolled out another "these people are sheep" rant.


Hypocrisy? (none / 2) (#235)
by mcc on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 04:31:42 PM EST

WARNING: EXCESSIVE CYNICISM FOLLOWS.

Ashcroft is launching this initiative at the same time his boss, President Bush, is taking large campaign donations from executives at Comcast, a company that broadcasts pornography on its cable system.

I don't know, that seems totally consistent to me. After all, if the justice department shakes down and drives into nonexistence the assorted dime-a-dozen cheap-porn-video shops and websites, and the FCC ensures nothing even remotely sexual is available for free on the public airwaves, then people will have to go to Comcast to get their pornography. Seems simple enough.

[ Parent ]

you are actually 100% correct... but... (none / 2) (#390)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 01:06:05 PM EST

your criticism is taken deeply at heart, seriously

i could have written a more serious story, i could have looked into this bruce guy, etc... i was actually and instead i just ranted

bravo, no really, this is valuable criticism

but in my defense, i can only say that you shouldn't expect journalism all of the time on a site like this, you should expect more personal polemics like mine as well sometimes

secondly, i am not very even-tempered, and i will tend to shoot my mouth off than engage in media research... and you know what? here, that is perfectly ok, i don't see anyone paying me a salary here to do impersonal news reporting, do you?

that's what this site is: more personal, less clinical

so go to a reputable media outlet if kuro5hin is not filling your investigative reports jonesing... there is such a thing here as more impersonal journalistic analyses, but you can find space for rants like my own here as well, and you shouldn't be surprised by it, or epxress your disdain for it, because then the only problem is your understanding of what this place is for, not my ranting, capice?

it's: "technology and culture, FROM THE TRENCHES"

not "technology and culture, from the ivory tower"

get it? ;-)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Disappointed (none / 0) (#416)
by Mr Badger on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 02:03:44 PM EST

CTS, what you say about the state of "reporting" on k5 is true. I don't look for hard-hitting journalism from the posters at k5. That's not why I was disappointed in this article. I wasn't expecting more from k5. I was expecting more from you.

Last time we spoke, I was forced to re-evaluate my opinion of you. You were full of righteous fury, but that was no surprise. What was surprising was how intelligent you can be. This is why I'm somewhat disappointed in your choice of targets. You could have introduced us to Taylor (who sounds like a real winner), or attacked Bush's hypocritical connection to Comcast. I would have loved to see a CTS-style rant against a Justice Department that, during this time of conflict abroad and terror threats at home, uses our tax money to pay agents to sit in a cubical and surf the Net for porn. Seeing you unload on them, with both barrels of justified anger, would have made for good reading.

Your smart, often funny, and have a refreshing amount of real rage to unload in your stories. Use it on something worth it.


[ Parent ]

well shit man (none / 0) (#433)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 03:04:41 PM EST

i'm not a tool for YOUR rage

it sounds like instead of me pointing my road rage gun in a "better" direction, maybe you should be stoking a righteous venting of fury yourself

so instead of the necessity of more of your discretion in me, perhaps there needs to me more of my rage in you

because when i read your post, i see nothing more than a desire to vent seeking a way to get out ;-)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

No Rage Here (none / 1) (#444)
by Mr Badger on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 03:36:43 PM EST

Not me. I don't do rage so much.

Anyway, you're right. Your article is your call. Rage on, my friend.

[ Parent ]

Janet Jackson comparison (none / 3) (#191)
by ethereal on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 02:39:03 PM EST

I totally agree with the point you're making about Christians and their weird hangups. But:

I think your comparison is not as strong as it could be. The Janet Jackson thing was not just a half-second of breast; it was not a purely innocent sexual thing. The event, and its aftermath, went more like this: Man violently de-clothes Woman, Woman gets blamed for being easy, patriarchical society is then satisfied. Really this was a passion play too, not just a moment of sexual exuberance.

Depending on what consenting adults enjoy, this is not necessarily a bad thing. But it is probably not what you want to contrast against the Passion of Christ, since your counterexample basically consists of an act of sexual violence against a woman, and then blaming the woman for it.

So my point is: can we have an example of just sexuality, to compare against a movie that was mostly violence? Sex with violence isn't a strong enough foil for the Jesus story.

--

Stand up for your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and State

iirc (none / 1) (#285)
by kpaul on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:18:42 PM EST

someone said there was something to the 'date' it happened on as well...


2014 Halloween Costumes
[ Parent ]

the comparison is contemporaneous (none / 0) (#389)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 12:57:53 PM EST

the janet affair and the jesus spectacle happen at the SAME TIME in the american media

the same people that embrace one, reject the other, at the exact same time

therefore, the comparison has value, and exposes hypocrisy: "violence good, sex bad"

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I was dumbfounded this morning (2.76 / 13) (#192)
by mcgrew on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 02:46:40 PM EST

I read Gibson wants to show this on TV, complete and uncut. I think any broadcast station that shows "Passion" should have its license revoked.

This movie should NOT be shown to children. Hell, I feel bad about taking my daughter to see it, and she's 17!

IMO, anyone who would subject a child to the horror that is Christ's sacrifice for my soul should read their Bible. "Whatever you do to a child, you do to me", as I paraphrase Christ saying (from my blurred memory).

Congratulations, Mr. Preacher, your encouraging people to take their children to this movie is a SIN. But that's OK, we're all sinners, even the preacher. Even the Pope.

I saw the movie, and will likely buy the DVD. But I am not under any circumstance showing it to any child. It is not a movie for children, it is not a movie for athiests, it is not a movie for anybody except Christians. It has no value whatever to a non believer.

As to Janet's tit, it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel. TV has gone way past the line. It seems that the only taboo on TV is cusswords, tits, genitals, and humor.

Use of the broadcast spectrum is not a right. I never watch NBC at all any more, just because I don't want to be subjected to a commercial for Fear Factor. I mean, for Christ's sakes, if you want to watch somebody eating worms fine, but don't force me to see it!

They put movies on TV that should never be broadcast, and what's worse brutally mangle good movies while doing it.

The Terminator on TV was a puzzle. They cut out the swear words, but left in all the gore and most of the sex scene- but carefully incized it where the boobies wouldn't show while she was fucking the good guy!

Arnold walks up and demands the punk's clothes. Punk says "Fuck You" and Arnold tears out his beating heart. TV cuts out the "fuck you" but leaves in all the blood.

I'm offended by laugh tracks. If a show has a laugh track, it must not be the least bit funny or it wouldn't need a God damned laugh track!

But humor is taboo on TV.

What part of Bizarro World are these people from, any way?

-------
"Those who would give up, um, yada yada yada" -Anonymous Coward

But it does have value to a non-believer (none / 1) (#230)
by Nigga on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 04:13:10 PM EST

there's plenty there for non-christians that appreciate film, drama, story-telling, and Monica Bellucci.

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

The pornographic gore? (N/T) (none / 1) (#318)
by Elendale on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 11:10:59 PM EST


---

When free speech is outlawed, only criminals will complain.


[ Parent ]
Hmm... (none / 0) (#240)
by teece on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 04:50:05 PM EST

As to Janet's tit, it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel. TV has gone way past the line. It seems that the only taboo on TV is cusswords, tits, genitals, and humor.

Hmm, you say that like it is a bad thing.

Use of the broadcast spectrum is not a right.

Hehe.  What a quaint notion, the broadcast spectrum as public resource -- as opposed to explotable corporate cash cow -- why, it's so, so, democratic!

-- Hello_World.c, 17 Errors, 31 Warnings...
[ Parent ]

Well, in a FREE country, it would be a right! (none / 2) (#244)
by araym on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 05:21:04 PM EST

Use of the broadcast spectrum is not a right. I never watch NBC at all any more, just because I don't want to be subjected to a commercial for Fear Factor. I mean, for Christ's sakes, if you want to watch somebody eating worms fine, but don't force me to see it!

Hey did you ever hear of something called capitalism or a free market system? You are not forced to watch TV at all, if the majority of the population thinks it's fine then you are in the minority, don't try to impose your values on others. It amazes me how in general, the most staunch defenders of capitalism, the conservatives, have no problem imposing communist style central planning when it comes to the broadcast networks.

As far as showing a breast on TV, hey men show their breasts all the time why shouldn't women be able to if they want? I think it's funny that the same type of people that have no problem taking us into wars that kill thousands and revel watching us bomb the hell out of a country have a problem with seeing one of the most beautiful things in our world, the human form.

-=-
SSM

[ Parent ]
You have a point. (none / 1) (#286)
by bakuretsu on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:19:25 PM EST

But I can name some boobies I'd rather have seen than those of Janet Jackson. If we're going to revel in the beauty and grace of the human form, let's at least revel in some attractive ones.

-- Airborne
    aka Bakuretsu
    The Bailiwick -- DESIGNHUB 2004
[ Parent ]
Cheers. (none / 2) (#280)
by bakuretsu on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:15:10 PM EST

I mean, for Christ's sakes, if you want to watch somebody eating worms fine, but don't force me to see it!

Way to use the Lord's name in vain, you heathen motherfucker.

-- Airborne
    aka Bakuretsu
    The Bailiwick -- DESIGNHUB 2004
[ Parent ]
Value to non-believers (none / 0) (#349)
by Jave27 on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 09:47:55 AM EST

I'm more of a non-organized-religion person than a non-believer, but I enjoyed the movie strictly for the idea that we (humans) used to do this to people on a regular basis, and it was viewed as normal and effective.  And, in some parts of the world, I'm sure this type of activity is going on still (maybe not necessarily the hanging on a tree part, but at least the brutal beatings).

So, what I took out of this movie was that we need to be diligent about not letting this type of behavior occur again.  Torture shouldn't be tolerated, regardless of how "guilty" the party involved is.

"Beating up the homeless. It's cruel, but it's a good clean work-out and leaves you feeling winded and superior." - CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]

The movie wasn't about the brutality of torture, (none / 0) (#476)
by handslikesnakes on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 06:10:14 PM EST

It was about Jesus. That's the only reason anybody cared about it.



[ Parent ]
exactly! (none / 0) (#388)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 12:56:14 PM EST

i'm glad some people understand the hypocrisy of "violence good, sex bad"

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
That's funny.. I seem to recall... (1.18 / 11) (#194)
by sudog on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 02:51:32 PM EST

..the religious right told people NOT to go see this movie. Oh, I see: you managed to find one out of thousands of "Religious Right"ists who suggested people *do* go see the Passion and made a K5 story out of it.

Good for you. You know how to use Google.

What's your next trick? Are you going to go find a Native American who loves white people and, Seinfeld-like, decry, "What's the deal here? Why do native americans love white people so much?"


Been in a cave the past two months? (2.50 / 4) (#208)
by talorin on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 03:15:23 PM EST

Because you must have missed the fact that damn near every church in the nation is big on The Passion.  Churches in my city were even putting up billboards for it.  

[ Parent ]
My Thoughts (2.84 / 13) (#195)
by EXTomar on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 02:52:36 PM EST

  • The Passion of The Christ is one of the most violent movies I've ever seen. That isn't bad but I will never sugar coat it when asked: you see some pretty brutal stuff being done to human beings in The Passion. It is quite profound because many people out there know this story by the Gospel in the Bible but rarely grasp the implications. Last supper, arrest, crusifiction, and resurrection right? However until I saw this movie it never occured to me just how costly dying for our sins really was. I would never let a little kid watch this movie. I'm plainly shocked that parents allow their 5 year olds see this movie. It frankly isn't appropriate for them.

  • The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a sad movie that is violent but its cartoony. Anyone who gets scarred by the "violence" in this movie has more of an issue their perception of reality in general and shouldn't be watching movies anyway.

  • Janet Jackson's boob? The only malfunction here is that so many people are obscessed with it. If American leaders think the populace's mental state is so fragile that a brief shot of someone's nipple will send the masses into general depravity then they need to check themselves into a hospital. Why does American culture want to make us so afraid of the human form? Breasts shouldn't be bared in public but accidental sightings shouldn't harold the end of days.

  • Doesn't Ashcroft have something better to do than to scan movies and TV for boobies? Oh yeah...like that terrorist thing. I suppose its easier to rattle sabers against Hollywood than it is against terrorists. Maybe he should stop staring at the artwork in his office and do something more productive.

I rarely watch South Park but the last episode I saw made a profound statement: Americans are obscessed with sex and ignore violence. Is anyone really shocked Ashcroft is chasing pictures of booty instead of chasing lunatic bomb makers?



Re: My Thoughts (none / 3) (#264)
by drsmithy on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 06:45:20 PM EST

Why does American culture want to make us so afraid of the human form? Breasts shouldn't be bared in public [...]

I hereby nominate these words for the highest concentration of hypocrisy in this thread.

[ Parent ]

unwanted behaviour (1.25 / 4) (#314)
by gdanjo on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 10:40:07 PM EST

Janet Jackson's boob? The only malfunction here is that so many people are obscessed with it. If American leaders think the populace's mental state is so fragile that a brief shot of someone's nipple will send the masses into general depravity then they need to check themselves into a hospital. Why does American culture want to make us so afraid of the human form? Breasts shouldn't be bared in public but accidental sightings shouldn't harold the end of days.
Are you not offended by the sneaky way that Janet tried to get publicity for herself? Are you not offended that she made a decision to do something that she knew would cause outrage? Are you not offended by spam and spyware?

This is not just about a tit. The outrage is more of a shit-fight for power - if we allow anyone to decide to do anything at any time anywhere, then everyone will do it all the time. If people were not outraged by Janet, then we'd see both Christina Agulera's tits "accidently" pop out, Ricky Martin's pants "accidently" fall off, and Johnny Knoxville's penis "accedently" fall in someone's soup.

The bigger message from the "outrage" is that people do not like to be manipulated.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

And? (3.00 / 4) (#343)
by Nursie on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 06:29:48 AM EST

then we'd see both Christina Agulera's tits "accidently" pop out, Ricky Martin's pants "accidently" fall off, and Johnny Knoxville's penis "accedently" fall in someone's soup.
So?
what's the problem? Christina and Ricky would lose some of her younger audience, and people that don't want to see Johnny Knoxville's dick will stop watching his shows.

Just like Johnny Rotten wasn't invited to be on mainstream TV much for a long time, because people didn't want to see a rude old punk.

Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
janet (none / 0) (#523)
by gdanjo on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 01:01:59 AM EST

So?
what's the problem? Christina and Ricky would lose some of her younger audience, and people that don't want to see Johnny Knoxville's dick will stop watching his shows.
Television is not a free market. What you suggest would be a good "fix" were TV completely free and open to everyone - then, free will (choice) will filter out that which we do not want to see.

But TV is not an open market. TV is not owned by Christina, Ricky, Johnny or Janet. They cannot choose to do anything they want on my TV and then just tell me not to watch. We all own TV, and through this ownership we all assert what the preconditions will be. My precondition is: don't treat my like fucking knob. I am not your marketing experiment.

And so I put in my 2 cents to help define what should be on our TV. If we get enough 2 cents, then we can make sure manipulators like Janet don't get the chance to do it again.

If Janet want's more "freedom" on TV to do what she wants, she should stop fucking with everyone.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

Free market could work, but... (none / 0) (#611)
by Nursie on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 04:56:51 AM EST

Actually i like the idea of any content being suitable and people just watching what they're comfortable with.
If there's a channel you don't like, you can stop paying for it....

But that does bring into question the idea of having ratings, and predictability, and watersheds, such that Miss Jackson wouldn't be able to do that in a show rated "family suitable" or whatever the superbowl would come under.

I kind of agree with your general point, that it was all a stupid cynical publicity ploy, and I don't think that she has the right to flash on tv for the hell of it. OTOH I think the US should get the stick out of its arse when it comes to a bit of nudity on TV.

Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
Hypocrisy of the Right (2.60 / 5) (#198)
by Dphitz on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 02:55:21 PM EST

Republicans will always support a free market economy, unless it happens to go against their morals.  Porn is a $17 billion dollar industry.  Howard Stern continuously pulls down the highest ratings.  Yet supposedly these two things are bad and because of a minority of tight-ass, fundie-freaks we may be denied what is overwhelmingly popular.  

Bush + Ashcroft = teh kok sux0rs  


God, please save me . . . from your followers

Just wanted to remind you (2.77 / 9) (#205)
by Redemption042 on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 03:09:00 PM EST

about Jim cav...something or other, the guy who played jesus, was struck by lightening while making this movie...

just an amusing tidbit.  

as reported by BBC

Twice, in fact NT (none / 0) (#609)
by brain in a jar on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 03:41:06 AM EST


Life is too important, to be taken entirely seriously.
[ Parent ]

you're supposed to feel bad (2.86 / 15) (#207)
by JyZude on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 03:11:05 PM EST

Christianity, as with most religions, wants you to feel unworthy. No Christian will ever admit this, but it happens. As an excample, look at my grandmother. A devout Catholic, she is convinced that she is going to hell because of the transgressions of her children (like getting married out of doors... gasp!) Or my mother, who was caught up with the Jehovah's Witnesses for a while, who still believes that she we are all going to hell (or rather, are going to miss the afterlife) because we cannot ever be worthy enough for their concept of heaven.

Janet Jackson's little display wasn't exactly high art, but in any case, nudity is an important aspect of art. When presented tastefully, the nude figure celebrates humanity. It says to us "hey, look, we are beautiful. Human beings are beautiful creatures." The church does not want this, because good sheep don't believe in themselves. Instead, they believe in the divine power of The Lord God, and so the church says "cover up your bodies because they are ugly and imperfect. Only God is perfect."

On the other hand, watching Jesus being tortured for two days is good for the church because it makes Jesus less of a human. Jesus, as a human being, is a lot like us. So we might think "we can be like Jesus. He was human, and thus we can believe in ourselves and be good like him." There's that self-importance that must be crushed. So, we portray Jesus as a man tortured and maimed for two days and all of a sudden he is not like us anymore. We are to think "gee, we couldn't have gone through torture like that. Jesus must have been the Son Of God. I can never strive to be that good, for he is perfect, and I can never be perfect."

If you don't believe in yourself you can be controlled, and organized religion can be a form of control.

-----
k5 is not the new Adequacy k thnx bye


Where. (none / 2) (#263)
by DAldredge on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 06:42:13 PM EST

Where does the Bible say such things are wrong? One of the problems with most religions is that people do not read the Holy Texts of their religion, instead they allow others to tell them what their religiton means. And, sometimes, those doing the telling have other interests at heart.

The word is American, not USian.
American \A*mer"i*can\, n. A native of America; -- originally applied to the aboriginal inhabitants, but now applied to the descendants of Europeans born in America, and especially to the citizens of the US
[ Parent ]
nowhere (none / 0) (#288)
by JyZude on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:32:06 PM EST

The Bible doesn't say these things are wrong. It's the current interpretation that says it - the interpretation of the Catholic church, for example.

I said organized religion can be a form of control, not religion in general. The organized part is where the danger is, the religion is only used as a facade to "shepperd the sheep".

-----
k5 is not the new Adequacy k thnx bye


[ Parent ]
Really... (none / 0) (#551)
by jameth on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 01:31:25 PM EST

Christianity, as with most religions, wants you to feel unworthy.

Don't start like that, if you only meant organized religion.

[ Parent ]

conceptual mis-match (none / 1) (#315)
by gdanjo on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 10:52:26 PM EST

Christianity, as with most religions, wants you to feel unworthy. No Christian will ever admit this, but it happens. [...]

Janet Jackson's little display wasn't exactly high art, but in any case, nudity is an important aspect of art. [...]

You're comparing the "goal" of religion with the classification of an act. If you allow Janet's exploits to be labeled 'art' then you must allow that religion is 'speech'. If you say that religion has a 'goal' of making you feel in some way, then you must allow that Janet tried to make you feel another way - and tried to cash in on that feeling.

You're showing your bias here: you do not like religion, but like tits.

If you don't believe in yourself you can be controlled, and organized religion can be a form of control.
Yeah, so? Parents are a form of control, so is law, programming, drawing, talking, etc. In fact, everything is the control of something one way or another.

What's your point?

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

speech and act (none / 2) (#357)
by JyZude on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 11:15:56 AM EST

Hmm, I suppose my post is a bit wandering. I'll try to make it more explicit. I was trying to show that being outraged at Jackson's tit and reveling in The Passion of Christ is not hypocritical as circletimesquare asserts. It is logical if the church's intention is to suppress physical pleasure, self-interest, and self-respect, (and this is a good way to gain control of people).

Janet Jackson's tit-revealing was an act, and I assert that its intention was to tittilate (no pun intended). That is, to provide pleasure on a personal, physical, and ultimately human level. This is counter to the goal of religion that I  claimed. And that's why the religious right is "shocked and outraged" over this act.

The Passion, is a movie and thus is speech, and I assert that its goal is to make Jesus less of a man and more of a God, thereby downplaying the idea that a person can ever be "good" enough in themselves. And that is why the religious right support this speech, despite the horrible violence of it.

A little better?

-----
k5 is not the new Adequacy k thnx bye


[ Parent ]
I would have marked the article +1 except ... (2.66 / 6) (#212)
by BradPuett on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 03:19:46 PM EST

No mention of Jenna Jamerson except in the title, only 2 sentences about Janet's breast, and NO PICTURES?! =:^0

the message of Christ (2.83 / 6) (#213)
by ljj on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 03:20:05 PM EST

I believe in Jesus Christ, yet Mel Gibson's movie left me cold. I imagine crucifixion to be a pretty violent, if not the most violent method to put a human being to death. All that crow picking and asphyxiation ...

But somehow that for me is not the message of Christ. His bloody slaughter is just auxiliary to the primal theme which is that Christ is the passage to God. He shows us a way in which we can live in peace with God and become holy like him.

I think this movie misses this, and for it to be throttled down the throats of impressionable minds is very unfortunate.

--
ljj

amen. [mt] (none / 1) (#278)
by kpaul on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:13:44 PM EST


2014 Halloween Costumes
[ Parent ]
thank you! (nt) (none / 1) (#387)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 12:53:46 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
interesting angle ... (none / 2) (#216)
by ljj on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 03:29:07 PM EST

... on counterpunch by the ironically named Diane Christian, regarding said film.

--
ljj

-1, irrational drivel (1.00 / 6) (#219)
by Nigga on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 03:40:11 PM EST

I stopped reading after you made it sound like jesus' torturers were the protagonists in the film. There's no question as to who the movie wans us to simpathize with. What's the point of spreading misinformation about Mel Gibson's movie? It's not going to fool anybody into letting you keep your porn.

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?

+1 my favorite family to deliver milk to (none / 1) (#294)
by fenix down on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 08:10:13 PM EST

Sympathizing with, you know, God seems kinda blasphemous any way I look at it.  I sympathized with Judas, mostly.  Poor guy under the toe of machiavellian forces man cannot comprehend.  That's gotta suck.  Jesus at least had that bald chick that sounded like Steven Tyler hanging around to help him out.  Judas got stuck with the "One of us! One of us!" midgets.

[ Parent ]
props for the dave chapelle reference (3) nt (none / 0) (#303)
by Nigga on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 09:19:19 PM EST


--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

I sympathized (none / 0) (#308)
by lamont116 on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 10:19:55 PM EST

with the dude who helped "Jesus" carry the cross, not with "Jesus" himself. That dude was the closest thing to a real character in the whole trainwreck of a movie (Pilate was second, but behind by a mile). What a crappy film that was; my Catholic girlfriend made me take her, but I recall her crying more during LOTR 3 than during this one (and she was brainwashed - and I mean BRAINWASHED - by the nuns at Catholic school as a child!) This was so over-the-top that I was actually laughing at the screen at times.

[ Parent ]
context (none / 1) (#386)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 12:52:48 PM EST

so if i show you a 2 hour movie where a woman is brutally gang raped, it's ok if i say you are supposed to sympathise with the woman?

that's your logic, bub

looking at the sex or violent content of a film outside of it's context is perfectly acceptable and has important probative value, period

especially when giant spanking contemporaneous hypocricy about sex/ violence occurs such as with 1/2 second janet versus 2 hour jesus


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Sure, (none / 0) (#391)
by Nigga on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 01:07:12 PM EST

Why wouldn't it be ok if you say "you are supposed to sympathise with the woman" If that's who you're obviously supposed to simpathise with. The most disturbing rape scene I've ever seen was in Irreversible which I found to be rather profound and important. Here is an enactment of what actually happens to women all the time. Seeing it in such brutal detail gave me an example of their struggle. Now when I see a woman who has been permanantly fucked up for the rest of her life from being raped I can understand her pain that much more. I can also understand Jesus' pain that much more from watching passion.

So ok then let's take janets boob out of context if that's what you like to do so much. It's a clear example of sexual harrassment at a football game. Justin rips of the unsuspecting janet's bra and she gets a shocked and embarassed look on her face. The people didn't come to see a woman be sexually harrassed or see any act of violence against a woman... they came for a football game. But what's the point of dropping context? Honesty I don't see the value... it seems like a pointless intelluctal excersize without any practical purpose.

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

Sure, (none / 0) (#392)
by Nigga on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 01:07:23 PM EST

Why wouldn't it be ok if you say "you are supposed to sympathise with the woman" If that's who you're obviously supposed to simpathise with. The most disturbing rape scene I've ever seen was in Irreversible which I found to be rather profound and important. Here is an enactment of what actually happens to women all the time. Seeing it in such brutal detail gave me an example of their struggle. Now when I see a woman who has been permanantly fucked up for the rest of her life from being raped I can understand her pain that much more. I can also understand Jesus' pain that much more from watching passion.

So ok then let's take janets boob out of context if that's what you like to do so much. It's a clear example of sexual harrassment at a football game. Justin rips of the unsuspecting janet's bra and she gets a shocked and embarassed look on her face. The people didn't come to see a woman be sexually harrassed or see any act of violence against a woman... they came for a football game. But what's the point of dropping context? Honesty I don't see the value... it seems like a pointless intelluctal excersize without any practical purpose.

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

dude (none / 0) (#409)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 01:32:49 PM EST

2 hours of bloody evisceration, whatever the context

versus

1/2 second of a middle aged woman's boobage, whatever the context

are you are honestly telling me right now that you see no hypocrisy in the same people, at the same time, telling us that one is wonderful and the other is unforgiveable?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I'd see hypocrisy in what you describe (none / 0) (#414)
by Nigga on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 01:57:05 PM EST

but it's an unjust characterization of their arguments. The extreme right fundies or whoever it is you're sock puppeting around here don't believe the violence is good. They think it's bad which is exactly what makes this film important to them. You make it sound like they're saying "hey kiddies let's go see a bloodfest so we can turn ourselves into a culture of violence." While a culture of violence may be an unintended side effect (which if written about in a rational way I would have appreciated the discussion) it's not the intent of those that feel passion is a movie that children should see. You know this... you're too smart not to know this so why are you spouting alarmist bullshit and irrational rhetoric that intereferes with the real issues?

And the boob thing was a horrible comparisson. How would you have liked it if during halftime the camera showed somebody getting a heart transplant? There's nothing really wrong with it, but it's not really something you wanted to see.. and you certainly weren't expecting it. I'd be pissed... eventhough I might watch the same surgery with enthusiastic interest on TLC later that night. The very nature of how uncalled for the breast is throws off you ability to use it as a fair piece of critisism of the right-wing fundies. Please come up with a better example of how they think an exposed breast is a horror... I personally can't off the top of my head.

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

look, here it is straight: (none / 0) (#421)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 02:29:46 PM EST

When it comes to frank depictions of sexuality or violence in video games or in the movies, I am of the opinion that only good can come of it.

That is, we can view human beings one of two ways: blank slates who mimic what their culture and society tells them is acceptable, or as seething cauldrons of primordial violence and sex that must be tamed and channeled by society and culture into appropriate modes of behavior.

To me, the second depiction of human beings is more accurate. I believe we have within us an innate ability for much evil behavior, and therefore violence in the media serves as an outlet for this psychic waste that might otherwise find expression in real life. Therefore, I am of the opinion that
sexuality and violence in the media can only serve the purpose of good: an opiate, a harmless release in fantasy rather than a harmful release in reality.

In this regard, the jesus chainsaw massacre is not a "bad thing." what is bad to me is the HYPOCRISY of "violence good, sex bad." it rankles me. you say the boob thing is a horrible comparison, but it is not: they happened AT THE SAME TIME, FROM THE SAME PEOPLE. contemporaneously. it's hypocrisy, pure and simple. do you disagree with me?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

heh (none / 0) (#435)
by Nigga on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 03:08:13 PM EST

what is bad to me is the HYPOCRISY of "violence good, sex bad."

All I'm saying is that your perception of this hypocricy is not founded in rational thought. At least none that I can find in this artical. Find somebody that actually agrees with "violence good sex bad" and I'll assure you they would most certainly be unlike any mainstream group of people in America today.

PASSION IS NOT A HORROR MOVIE BLOOD-FEST! IT'S NOT IN THE SAME GENRE AS TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE! Don't you see that? It's a dramatic movie dealing with heavy themes. Whether Mel Gibson wanted to shock us or not is a moot point because if you remove its ability to shock and disgust it still has a lot of merit.. Infact most of its merit is still there. If you take away the shock and disgust of TCM all we'd have left is jessica biel in tight white shirt and low cut jeans.. which I agree has a lot of merit but probably wouldn't have grossed millions.

I'm sorry if you're so troubled by this hypocricy.. I wish i could free you from your own mind.. because it seems to only exist as a figment of your imagination... As your observations are a stretch and best and actually irrational and non-sensical.

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

wtf?! (none / 0) (#438)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 03:12:57 PM EST

are you going to sit there and tell me that the religious right having no problem sending children to the bloodbath that is the passion of the christ, while at the same time, screaming holy terror at the sighting of janet jackson's boob, is not hypocrisy?

and are you going to tell me that these people don't exist and they have no impact on american society?

wtf are you smoking?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

er.... (none / 0) (#439)
by Nigga on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 03:18:20 PM EST

Indeed I am saying it's not hypocricy in the slightest... infact if you were to ever argue with a religious right you might be surprised how thoroughly consistant their beliefs are.. Probably no more inconsistant than the rest of us. You might not agree with how they reacted to both of these issues but they have their reasons, they are consistent, and it's CERTAINLY NOT hypocricy!

So if it's hypocricy that troubles you then it's not really founded in reality from what I can tell... If you're troubled that they make poor decisions as parents well that's another topic that I would find rather interesting. However this strange rhetoric that's hard to follow isn't.

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

no, you are flat out wrong (none / 0) (#448)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 03:46:45 PM EST

there are a lot of people out there who believe this:

and they are mostly from the religious right:

violence good (the passion of the christ: take your kids!)

sex bad (oh my god! a boob!)

this is hypocrisy, this is wrong, and you are fucking moron


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

heh, it's funny (none / 0) (#466)
by Nigga on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 05:12:31 PM EST

how you ignored all of my valid and reasonable arguments that explain why you are wrong by saying this... your rebuttle of which is to just stubbornly sit there and repeat the shit that I already showed was irrational. It's a real mature and non-inflammatory response there CTS... the argument to which I have already responded to. If you'd like to actually read what I wrote and respond to it and a non-childish way I'll read it. Until then... ciao.

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

don't be a dick (none / 0) (#470)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 05:37:54 PM EST

i am childish

now admit you're a fucking dick

here, plain and simple, tell me where the fuck i am wrong:

violence good, sex bad= hypocrisy

until then, you're a fucking piece of shit for refusing to go against that very basic point i am making

you haven't said shit in all of your posts about that central observation of mine

if i am wrong, pull a quote out of your ass from a post above and show me

until then, all you are is being very good at smug deflection

and i'll call you fucking piece of shit for it until you do otherwise


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

CTS formatted response (none / 0) (#472)
by Nigga on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 05:47:19 PM EST

I agreed with the statement that violence good, sex bad = hypocrisy

that much we agree on

where we disagree is that there's a significant percentage of the US or human race that actually preaches this directly or indirectly.

You seem to have come up with an example of it.

But your example is far-fetched, hard to follow, makes no sense, and is cloaked in every cheesy rhetorical trick out there.

People encouraging kids to see passion != (is not equal to) People saying violence is good.

period

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

dude (none / 0) (#475)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 06:07:42 PM EST

if i say "watch this orgy porn for 2 hours, it has a really positive message" and then say, "oh, and btw, i am not saying sex is good" am i hypocrite?

did you see the movie?

what part of bloody evisceration for 2 FUCKING HOURS did you miss?

in what INSANE FUCKING WORLD does saying WATCH THIS 2 HOUR DISEMBOWELMENT OF A MAN OH AND BTW VIOLENCE IS BAD make sense????????????????????


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

puhleese (none / 1) (#479)
by Nigga on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 06:18:31 PM EST

If the orgies were depicted as offensive, uninticing, disturbing, dispicable etc... AND they were FAKE orgies.. not real orgies AND there was a clear message or theme in the movie somewhere for abstinance then sure... it would be pretty similar to passion in that it not only tells you its bad but SHOWS it to be bad... then great yeah you could say "oh and btw, i am not saying sex is good"  I'd have no problem with it.

Answer to your last question:  This world.  You might have had a hardon watching this movie, if so then it probably didn't have the effect on you it was trying to have.  Me on the other hand I was disturbed by it.  I thought the message was clear that the violence in the film was FUCKED UP.  AKA BAD.  Not good.  Ask anybody who worked on the film if they agree with me and i suspect they would.

DEPICTION != endorsement.  ANd to equate depiction with endorsement has been a pathetic rhetorical tactic for far to long that i'd really like to see go bye bye.

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

you are royally fucked up (none / 2) (#484)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 06:29:44 PM EST

"oh hi mr. ashcroft, yes i have a rather large collection of porn on my computer. however, you cannot prosecute me because all 10,000 hours of the porn is simulated and all of the actors and actresses in it felt bad about it afterward. additionally, you'll notice in this particular gang rape, it is mother theresa being brutalized. and she is being gang raped for my sins. therefore, it is a positive message, so can i keep my porn now mr. ashcroft?"

YOU ARE ROYALLY FUCKED UP

YOU CANNOT TELL ME SHOWING A MAN BEING BLOODIED TO A PULP IS ANY WAY REDEEMING OR NONVIOLENT

no amount of your fucking verbiage is changing the fact that

IT

IS

2

HOURS

OF

THE

BLOODY

EVISCERATION

OF

A

MAN

capice?

can argue around that bloody fucking rock of gibraltar jackass?

apparently, in your fucked up hypocritical existence, the right combination of hocus pocus words will call black as white, wet as dry, and day as night

but in my fucking world if it QUACKS LIKE A DUCK AND WALKS LIKE A DUCK IT'S A FUCKING DUCK

ergo,

THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST WAS A BLOODY FUCKING ULTRAVIOLENT MOVIE

go ahead and say otherwise

it just makes you a crackpot

i have my eyes, and i know what they tell me

how you can say in a billion years that fucking snuff film is not violent is utterly beyond me


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

you aren't listening (none / 0) (#486)
by Nigga on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 06:37:35 PM EST

I never claimed it wasn't violent or even ultra-violent.  It is.  But to say it's a message that violence is good is just stupid.

Oh, but since depiction == endorsement now all of a sudden let's look at that pro smoking commercial again.

A woman takes a cigarette up to the hole in her throat.. OH MY GOD THEY SHOWED HER SMOKING DON'T SHOW IT TO THE KIDS THEY'LL THINK IT'S COOL TO HAVE THEIR THROAT GET CANCER, REMOVED, AND STILL SMOKE!

Greg brady smoking in that brady bunch episode where he gets caught and reprimanded by his parents.  Oh.. Yeah..  Those evil tobacco companies must have funded that episode of the brady bunch.

GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK.

I'm beginning to wonder if you're even serious.  Certainly you must be a troll with this completely idiotic stance on depiction equals endorsement..

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

depiction does equal endorsement (none / 1) (#487)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 06:46:39 PM EST

using your examples:

"smoking is very bad... to prove it, watch two hours of this woman luxuriantly and in slow motion, up-close, passionately smoke this delicious cigarette with its vuluptuous smoke clouds"

do you see the fucking problem? is there possibly a ray of sunlight piercing your dunderhead of a brain yet?

here's another one: "pedophilia is very, very bad... to prove it, watch this old pervert deflower this 10 year old girl"

how about this genius: "we should all do our best to protect man's best friend... if you want to know why, why don't you watch this man beat this dog to death with a shovel for 2 hours in full technicolor and thx digital surround sound"

anything else einstein?

i am dead fucking serious

the fact that you are too SCARES THE SHIT OUT OF ME OF HOW BLIND PEOPLE CAN GET IN THIS WORLD


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

reductio absurdum (none / 0) (#490)
by Nigga on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 06:59:23 PM EST

Those religious fundies out there that just LOOOOVEEEEEE violence...  yeah um not wanting kids to see texas chainsaw massacre or kill bill is probably all just an act right?  Secretly they want kids to see these violent films, but can't hide behind the whole "well there's an important message" excuse like they could with the jesus movie or saving private ryan.  Damn.

"Hmmm... damn you know i really liked how this new passion movie shows sordid violence and such for our kids to see but I really think it's lame that it shows the two mary's in their own personal hell watching the horror unfold before them... if the kids see that footage they might get the idea the violence is wrong.   Oh.. and do we really need to subtitle jesus' dialogue about 'forgive them father for they do not know what they're doing.' message?  I mean, that's a little to gandhi-esque for our kids...  jesus should instead be out for blood in Passion 2 Jesus' revenge.  Have that fucker get ressurrected and go William Wallace on those jewish bitches"

Do you not see that this must be the thoughts going through the heads of those you critisize for your argument to make a single ounce of sense?

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

what you don't understand is how fucked up (none / 0) (#492)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 07:12:41 PM EST

people really are

"this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you"

"don't make me hit you"

"what did you do to make him look at you?"

and other choice gems from those blind to their own use of violence

jesus taught compassion and tolerance in the face of cruelty and corruption

i don't need to see his ribs sticking out for 2 hours to appreciate that concept

do you?

if you do, then that means you can't think, that yes, only violence can move you, that only violence is important to show at work in order to convince you something is right or wrong

what of jesus's travels? his miracles? his lesson? where the fuck were they einstein?

why THE FUCK do you need to show ULTRAVIOLENCE to tell a story about a man who taught us about TOLERNACE AND COMPASSION?????

does that strike in the least bit as strange?

you are actually 100% correct: those who respond passionately and positively to the passion of the christ are not motivated by reason, they are motivated by violence

and if you say that you cannot reason with them, that you need to show the violence to move people, then you are saying the only way to communicate ideas with people is through things like the bloody pulping of a human being over the course of two hours, then what does that say about what you think of your fellow human being?

what you are telling me is cynical and evil: human beings are sheep, they cannot be reasoned or talked to, you must crack a whip and suggest violence in order to get them to move

you are telling me that violence is superior to reason

you said it with sarcasm, but you are right: "Hmmm... damn you know i really like this new passion movie... i can only process the message of jesus through the showing of sordid violence and such for our kids to see. I really think it's good that it shows the two mary's in their own personal hell watching the horror unfold before them, because that's the only way i could understand that they were attached to him was by their reaction when someone does violence to him, there's just no other way to show that. if the kids see that footage they will understand why violence is the only way to communicate what jesus was saying- there is no other way to do that you know. oh.. and do we really need to subtitle jesus' dialogue about 'forgive them father for they do not know what they're doing.' message?  I mean, that's a little to gandhi-esque for our kids... just the violence itself communicates how tolerance and compassion rules supreme, right?"

wtf??


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Heh (none / 0) (#505)
by Nigga on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 10:37:32 PM EST

We're almost getting somewhere. You're almost beginning to make sense. It's not "Violence is good" that you're opposed to.. maybe you are but that just doesn't fit the given situation. What you are opposed to is the depiction of violence to communicate? Finally something interesting that half makes sense. I appoligize if that's all you were trying to say all along but forgive me if I think "violence is good!" is a very poor fucking way of stating that.

In which case your argument essentially ammounts to a film critique. It's unfair to make any assumptions that me, fundie christians or their kids couldn't be moved any other way. And what's wrong with the fact that we were moved by this movie even if it's not the best way to communicate in your eyes. We didn't make the movie hold Mel and his team responsible for that... we just simply watched it and were moved by it. Or is that wrong too?

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

this is just semantics (none / 0) (#511)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 11:25:35 PM EST

and more importantly, my real issue is with the hypocrisy of "sex bad, violence good"

or, rather, in our semantics of the day: "sex bad way to communicate, violence good way to communicate"- that's what i have a problem with: HYPOCRISY

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Are you so sure though? (none / 0) (#512)
by Nigga on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 11:31:50 PM EST

What's your evidence? Jackson's boob? Perhaps if there was sex in a jesus movie fundies would have the same stance, "you know, i have reservations about the kids seeing the sex but it really is an excellent enactment of biblical content and themes, and perhaps it's more important that they see this film" I'm sure some of them (not all surely) would come to the same conclusion and others I'm quite sure wouldn't. But overall your evidence is week. THERE'S SO MUCH MORE SEX THAT GOES ON that a lot christians don't get uptight about. Hell Jacksons' boob was probably one of the least sexy things about her. Her smile is far more sexy. And the song and dance without the boob was far more sexy. They were mad because they didn't want to see her flash them? Hell, I'm in the same boat.

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

a middle aged women's saggy breast (none / 0) (#513)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 11:38:40 PM EST

is a problematic turn on

but i have to back up here, indeed, i may have misled you: i DO have a problem:

ALL that movie was was violence

you keep talking context

no, that argument does not work

i can show you a dead cow, and say to you "the context of this dead cow is the miracle of the ecosystem"

ok, fine whatever, it's still a dead cow

i can show you a man getting torn to pieces, and say to you "the context of this snuff film is the beauty of the christian faith and what jesus taught us"

ok, fine whatever, it's still a fucking snuff film

do you get my problem? if you want to make a film of jesus, shouldn't you show a film about JESUS

that film was about the KILLING OF JESUS

thus: liek you said: violence alone should move us? what of talking to me?

can't i absorb the message of jesus with my mind? why do i have to do it in the worst possible way with my gut?

passion without thought is blind

thought without passion is corrupt

and thought must always rule passion, or you have nothing but sheep, easily manipulated by evil men who know how to manipualte the symbols of the church, rather than operate on the principles of the message

it's dangerous, to move people with violence, rather than moving them with tought

it's a principle of mob rule, not compassion, tolerance, or anything jesus spoke of


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

uh... (none / 0) (#517)
by Nigga on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 11:59:42 PM EST

Moving people with violence is what christianity's all about.

"Don't go entertaning that thought about evolution, it'll land you a 1 way ticket to eternal damnation!"

Compare being raised with that sort of mental abuse to passion.  I'd rather expose kids to passion that jack chick.  Passion doesn't seem to force us into anything... but just asks us to appreciate some art.

Here's the main difference.

Passion doesn't tell us anything..  It shows us.

Showing instead of telling is the best format for thought that I know of.

Christians are used to just being abuseivly told things... passion should be a walk in the park for most of them.

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

is the idea (none / 0) (#533)
by circletimessquare on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 05:45:26 AM EST

that people can moved by christ's teachings, his thoughts

as opposed to be moved by shows of violence, dumb mob hysteria passion

such a wacky radical idea?

are we really that fucked up?

;-(

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

no it's not a radical idea (none / 0) (#548)
by Nigga on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 12:54:49 PM EST

And to paint a picture of a world where this isn't the case makes NO FUCKING SENSE! 1 person decides to make a movie and now suddenly the entire planets population can only be communicated to through violence all because they liked the movie? Give me a fucking break. Do you not see that hysterical passion is your method of operation here? If you like thinking so much, why don't you try it instead of inventing problems in your head and wanting to believe them so much that you twist reality to support it rather then taking a cool calm and collected look at what is ACTUALLY going on? I dono... just food for thought.

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

popularity (none / 0) (#643)
by circletimessquare on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 06:41:31 PM EST

one man made the movie, but the resonance it has found in so many people means that it is a major reflection of how people think

therefore, it is not "making problems up in my mind"

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

oh.. yeah, sure! (none / 0) (#649)
by Nigga on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 09:39:40 PM EST

People can only be moved by the current means by which they're being moved. Large populations are moved by a Britney Spears song and suddenly it's THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN BE MOVED. Nevermind that the song had no violence and we just accurately observed that people can only be moved by violence, I mean.. if we actually thought critically about our hysteria it wouldn't be as fun now would it.

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

we agree dummy (none / 0) (#650)
by circletimessquare on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 09:55:16 PM EST

do you not see the HYSTERIA over the ultraviolence is what i have a problem with?

do you think it is so fleeting and temporary?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

man.. i don't know (none / 0) (#653)
by Nigga on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 10:13:25 PM EST

all i know is i want my violence and my porn and my critical thinking and my philosophy and my lectures and all of it... and I don't think i'm much different than your avg. mofo. I can see the value in lots of things, eventhough things are rarely black and white... and the degree to which we know how black and white they are is often not black and white... so that noted, i don't see much value in making horrible blanket statements and generalizations not founded in any sort of rational non-rhetorical arguments to fulfill the primal need to make an us vs. them conflict in our mind (the very thing that motivates the greatest injustices of humanity: prejudice)... and if you can't understand that that's exactly what you did with this artical then God help us.

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

what about hypocrisy? (none / 0) (#656)
by circletimessquare on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 11:36:52 PM EST

this i think is the result of a culture that embrace ultraviolence as sacrifice but chastises normal sexual impulses as evil:

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0404/140559.html

According to Alden, the men's genitals were manipulated to induce pain while they prayed. He could not be reached for comment Sunday.

Laird said his client could not talk about the rituals, citing an oath of confidentiality concerning prayer and confession.

The activities were not sexual, and were tied to a legitimate practice of penance and redemptive suffering, Laird said. Several people testified they found the prayers spiritual - not sexual - in nature.

uh huh


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I really don't have anything else (none / 0) (#657)
by Nigga on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 01:50:22 AM EST

to say about this... but this is probably the longest thread I've ever been involved in and would really hate to see it come to an end.

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

you just need ocd like me (none / 0) (#658)
by circletimessquare on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 02:08:40 AM EST

obsessive compulsive disorder, and a boring IT job, then you really never need to see any thread end ;-P

adios dude


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I'm no shrink (none / 0) (#659)
by Nigga on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 02:15:37 AM EST

but I suspect it's more than just OCD you got there buddy. IT job? Is that where you dress up as a clown and murder kids? OMFG I WONDER IF STEPHEN KING COULD NOT BE SO VIOLENT THAT HYPOCRITE NEEDS TO RITE A ROMANCE NOVEL!

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

fuck off! (none / 0) (#660)
by circletimessquare on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 02:28:59 AM EST

i made my point, i made it well, and a number of posts underneath support me, and it went quickly to the front page

the idea that "violence good, sex bad" is hypocrisy is not my weird lonely idea


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

anecdotal evidence (none / 0) (#661)
by Nigga on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 02:29:56 AM EST

is there a rhetorical trick YOU DON'T KNOW? Fuck!

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

yes there is a trick i don't know (none / 0) (#662)
by circletimessquare on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 03:24:52 AM EST

how to end this stupid fucking thread

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
You sad bastard (none / 0) (#665)
by Nigga on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 06:43:30 AM EST

You sad bastard You sad bastard You sad bastard You sad bastard You sad bastard You sad bastard You sad bastard You sad bastard You sad bastard You sad bastard You sad bastard You sad bastard You sad bastard You sad bastard You sad bastard You sad bastard You sad bastard

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

it takes two to tango (nt) (none / 0) (#680)
by circletimessquare on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 02:06:01 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
really? nt (none / 0) (#681)
by Nigga on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 03:22:52 PM EST


--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

looping the thread (none / 0) (#683)
by circletimessquare on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 04:03:18 PM EST

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2004/4/15/52411/7537/666#666

to post #666

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH

666!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

FUCK! (none / 1) (#689)
by Nigga on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 06:08:16 PM EST

scoop really ought to skip that number pretending it doesn't exist.

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

hey wait. (none / 3) (#224)
by /dev/trash on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 03:57:50 PM EST

What about those of us that don't want the SEX OR VIOLENCE?

---
Updated 02/20/2004
New Site
no SEX or VIOLENCE? (none / 3) (#228)
by Nigga on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 04:10:09 PM EST

what the fuck do you find entertaining then?!?!?!

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

lots of shit. (none / 2) (#316)
by /dev/trash on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 10:58:39 PM EST

All WAAYYYY over your intelligence skill.

---
Updated 02/20/2004
New Site
[ Parent ]
DoooD! (none / 2) (#342)
by Nursie on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 06:24:31 AM EST

Do you mean: "Significantly above your intellectual level"?

Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
Don't presume to know what's above and (none / 1) (#399)
by Nigga on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 01:16:22 PM EST

below my intellectual level... But the only answer you gave me was curse words. Which by the way i find entertaining too. See? We have some shit in common.

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

Seriously, what? (none / 0) (#686)
by Dyolf Knip on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 04:58:04 PM EST

I sat down and thought of my favorite games, fun stuff, whatever. A surprisingly large number of them are derived from violent activities, though often it's been almost totally euphamism-ed. Take chess for example. As a game, it epitomises the superiority of refined intelligence over brute strength. Yet it is, in the end, a simulation of a war.

---
If you can't learn to do something well, learn to enjoy doing it poorly.

Dyolf Knip
[ Parent ]

No it's not (none / 0) (#707)
by speek on Sun Apr 25, 2004 at 05:47:44 PM EST

That may be what one person imagines the symbols to mean, but that is just what they imagine in their heads - it is not inherently part of the game. Is Go violent? Sure, in the feminist sense which regards logic as violent, but, back to reality, no, it's not. Nor are Chess or Go "based" on violence. I think anyone who says otherwise has gone a little too far down the road of academic bullshit and gotten lost.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

well... (none / 1) (#231)
by The Geriatrix Revultions on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 04:17:44 PM EST

Don't watch it then.



[ Parent ]
but (none / 1) (#317)
by /dev/trash on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 10:58:43 PM EST

That's boring.

---
Updated 02/20/2004
New Site
[ Parent ]
Re: hey wait. (none / 1) (#261)
by drsmithy on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 06:36:07 PM EST

What about those of us that don't want the SEX OR VIOLENCE?

Then you are obviously too boring to be worth caring about :).

[ Parent ]

Uh... (none / 1) (#262)
by DAldredge on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 06:39:56 PM EST

How about you don't watch it?

The word is American, not USian.
American \A*mer"i*can\, n. A native of America; -- originally applied to the aboriginal inhabitants, but now applied to the descendants of Europeans born in America, and especially to the citizens of the US
[ Parent ]
Go back to France, n/t. (1.25 / 4) (#268)
by bakuretsu on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 06:58:22 PM EST



-- Airborne
    aka Bakuretsu
    The Bailiwick -- DESIGNHUB 2004
[ Parent ]
chop off your dick, pull out your eyes (nt) (none / 1) (#385)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 12:48:51 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
The Key difference (none / 3) (#236)
by CENGEL3 on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 04:36:20 PM EST

I think you are missing the key difference between The Passion of Christ and the Janet Jackson episode.

The key difference is that people going to see the Passion of Christ are informed of exactly what to expect ahead of time. The movie does come with an R rating and Gibson has never tried to downplay or obfuscate it's graphic nature. People are given the opportunity to make an informed decision about whether or not to see the movie.

The Janet Jackson thing would have been perfectly acceptable if it had occured in a venue where such content might be expected. Instead, people and thier families tune in to see a football game and all of a sudden they are getting flashed by Janet Jackson. People weren't given any opportunity to make an informed decision about watching it or not... it was just foisted on them with no warning (I don't buy the spin that it was an "accident". I believe it was planned and staged). If there had been a "partial nudity" warning before the halftime show was aired it wouldn't have been such a big deal. As it was, it was kind of like tuning in to see an a rerun of the Brady Bunch and getting a soft-core porn clip interlaced with the show.

That's why I don't have a problem with The Passion ( I have no plans to see it, myself... and think anyone who brings young kids to it is exercising extremely poor judgement) but do have a little bit of a problem with the Janet Jackson thing. Not enough of a problem that I want to see anyone go off on a legal crusade... but enough of a problem that I'll be happy to inform advertisers that I won't be watching anything that they sponsor which has similar content in future. Because the former gives people the opportunity to make a decision based on informed consent and the latter does not.

As far as the internet/porn thing, it's a thornier issue. I firmly support the right of any consenting adult to have access to any sort of content they wish. In general I don't support censorship either.  However it would be nice to be able to let my kid (when he gets a little older) be able to surf the internet unsupervised without worrying about his being exposed to graphic content. The internet really can be a great tool for kids to learn about stuff... on the other hand it really is easy for them to stumble into inappropriate content.

It's kind of a weird space that is really neither public nor private and yet both at the same time. I don't really think a legal solution of the kind Ashcroft wants is appropriate and I oppose it....even if it were appropriate, it seems entirely impractical. It would be nice to have a technical solution to the problem.... however I believe that most of the content filtering stuff is pretty unreliable so far. An ideal compromise solution (IMO) would be to require sites that had adult content to carry some sort of rating certificate/seal that filters COULD positively identify.....however, I have no idea how that could be practicaly enforced.

Oh, come on... (3.00 / 5) (#243)
by toulouse on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 05:13:07 PM EST

on the other hand it really is easy for them to stumble into inappropriate content.

No. No it isn't. Not at all. It's not like you go to the BBC, or a newspaper, or an encyclopedia, or a technical reference, or a tutorial, or a reviews site and there 'just happen' to be cumshots and fisting right there on screen.

It's not like Bill Gates wakes up every morning and goes "Holy Shit! - Okaaaay: who left all the porn scattered around the MSDN?" and a sheepish intern goes "Oh damn - yeah - shit - I must have forgot to tidy that up."

Let me explain how your kid is going to "stumble" on inappropriate content:

YOU: Ok, kid. How did you stumble on this inappropriate content?

KID: I was piss-bored and thought I'd go looking for some inappropriate content.

END OF STORY

It's far easier to be 'accidentally exposed' to inappropriate content at any one of the local shops and video stores than it is through the internet. Quit it with the "I'm a newfound father" hysteria...

Oh yeah - almost forgot - don't click on any of Stick's links. That'll skyrocket the odds of 'stumbling' ahundredfold.


--
'My god...it's full of blogs.' - ktakki
--


[ Parent ]
Beg to differ (none / 1) (#260)
by CENGEL3 on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 06:34:07 PM EST

I beg to differ with you. One simple example of how easy it can be is search engines. There are many words in the English language that have multiple meanings, some of which are lewd and some of which are prefectly innocent.

For instance, lets take the word "fist". It certainly has an innocent meaning and it is certainly something which a kid (maybe they are interested in martial arts or boxing or just how the muscles of the hand work) might do a search on. But if you type it in on Google you'll see that indeed the 3rd link is indeed an S&M site.
This stuff might SEEM hard to inadvertantly stumble upon because you and I are adults... we know what this stuff is and we generaly have some idea of how to avoid it if we want. For kids it's not that simple.... they aren't aware that for instance certain words have other meanings. They are also naturaly curious and they like to explore... they don't neccesarly realize the nature of some of the stuff that shows up in links, etc..... They just click and explore without thinking.

I'm not even going into the whole issue of spam e-mail with advertising links to adult sites. But that IS another factor to consider when thinking about appropriate internet use for kids.

[ Parent ]

Well. (none / 2) (#292)
by toulouse on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:50:28 PM EST

You seem like a reasonable individual and yet I'm hard-pressed to agree.

Firstly, to take your specific, hypothetical example, I find it hard to conceive of a context in which someone would innocently type the solitary word 'fist' into a search engine in the first place (what would you be hoping to find?), let alone one in which the searcher was oblivious to the possible results that may be returned. In addition, most reputable search engines return a snippet of surrounding context. In light of which (to return to my original post), clicking on such a link could hardly be considered "accidental" or "inadvertent".

Secondly, I think you do the intelligence of your average child a great disservice. Generally, most of them have a pretty good idea of whether they're straying off-limits or not - either as an informed, conscious awareness, or a more intuitive "I really don't know whether I should be reading this" feeling. You said it yourself:

They just click and explore without thinking.

They are thinking, all the time, and if they're exploring, it's not so much in the realms of "inadvertently stumbling" as "actively looking", isn't it?

It sounds to me as if you are saying that you feel aggrieved that you can't just let them surf freely without taking due responsibility and engaging in a little bit of parental oversight. Well that's right: you can't, and that's exactly the way it should be. It's the very same reason you can't let them watch any TV they feel like watching at any hour they wish - it's the reason broadcasting watersheds and 'ratings' for movies exist. It's the same reason you can't let them wander into pubs and clubs and video stores and roam the streets at will. The internet is not a separate issue here - it's the same thing. There's an excellent South Park episode called "The Return of the Fellowship of the Ring to the Two Towers" that deals with this very issue.

Personally, I learned far more subversive, disturbing and 'adult' things from books - good books - literature - than I ever picked up from TV or the internet, and it was all educational. You should examine some the orthodox christian paintings and tapestries if you want to see true barbarism - the suffering of the martyrs: They were doing it hundreds of years before Gibson.

I have a relative who worked for a long time at a very famous ISP / portal. They were continually inundated with complaints from parents that the search engines on the portal were serving up porn unbidden. A quick explanation of how a browser's 'autocomplete' feature worked coupled with the question "Do you have any children?" usually resulted in said embarrassed parent saying "Yes, I do, thank you very much for your help.....JEREMY!! Get down here NOW!!...<click>" - I think you get the point.


--
'My god...it's full of blogs.' - ktakki
--


[ Parent ]
Parental Oversight (none / 2) (#352)
by CENGEL3 on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 10:23:45 AM EST

I am all for parental supervision. At the same time it's not good for a kid to feel like their parents are looking over thier shoulders every second. Letting them have the freedom to do stuff on thier own is good for them. At the same time you want to setup a reasonably safe environment for them to do so.

With something like TV you CAN actualy do that because there are parental blocks that you can put on certain channels and you can restrict them to certain viewing hours for broadcast TV and you are relatively safe. That's because there is some control over the content that gets put on TV.

With the internet that is alot harder to do because there is far less control over the content that gets put up. That lack of control is a good thing but it comes with a price. All I really want is some way to definitively segregate the content that would be easy for an automated system to handle. Something like requiring adult sites to put a hidden text tag on thier pages I don't think would be an undue burden. It wouldn't place any hurdles in front of adults who actualy wanted to access the content... and it wouldn't even have any visual effect on the content of the site..... however it would allow people to build a very effective parental blocking system into browsers. The current filtering technology, as I understand it, sucks pretty badly.

Heck I'd even settle for a seperate root domain that was designated "Kid Safe", where there was some control over the content. That way you would at least know that as long as you restricted your kid to .kid it would be clean. As it is right now, everything is all jumbled together in a big mish mosh, without any really effective way to sort it out.

[ Parent ]

Actually, (none / 1) (#361)
by toulouse on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 11:52:55 AM EST

Some of what you suggest is excellent.

I'd be more in favour of placing the onus on the kid-safe pages, rather than the general ones, and some tag along the general lines of:

<META name="kid_guard" level="age_range" content="...">

would probably go a long way in and of itself. It's invisible, unintrusive, easily-implemented and easily-parsed.

The safe TLD idea is workable too, although it would have to be carefully-named to prevent kids feeling patronized. Methinks some form of RFC might be in order.

The only problem would be (like most things on the web), that it's up to the 'content-provider' to implement correctly, regardless of which sector the onus is placed upon. However, in this case it's likely that the vast majority of sites would play by the rules as it is in their interest to.


--
'My god...it's full of blogs.' - ktakki
--


[ Parent ]
Tags are unenforceable though, (none / 0) (#493)
by handslikesnakes on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 07:13:01 PM EST

Personally, I don't think it matters what a kid stumbles upon. Coming across a fisting site isn't going to horribly twist eir mind.



[ Parent ]
right, corporate type sites are usally pretty safe (none / 0) (#300)
by Nigga on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 08:23:17 PM EST

but that's just one part of the 'net what about sites like live journal or k5 or whatever that might have goatse.cx hidden in an innocent looking link? This is where the stumble factor really lies. It's happened to me, and frankly I'm surprised it hasn't happened to you.

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

Sure. (none / 2) (#301)
by toulouse on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 08:40:02 PM EST

In ten years of 'serious' net usage, I'm proud to have been goatsexed (that should be a legal verb btw.) just the once, and it was Tex that managed it. Yeah, I've clicked through other stuff too.

The question is: why would your 7-12 year old be reading K5 / livejournal in the first place? I know the average age of the community members here has gone down slightly in recent years, but still...

I feel, pretty strongly, that it is categorically not the duty of the net to self-police its content - it comes under the banner of plain old everyday parental responsibility. It's not like there are a shortage of products and 'features' to help out in this area, even if it's wrong to be constantly looking over kids' shoulders to see what they're up to. See the other reply for more on this.


--
'My god...it's full of blogs.' - ktakki
--


[ Parent ]
oh, fuck off (none / 2) (#270)
by Penrod Pooch on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:03:23 PM EST

you sexually repressed puritans are fucked in the head.  How in the name of satan can you compare a sub-second nipple flash to porn?  Are you a complete idiot or what?

[ Parent ]
no, no, no (none / 0) (#384)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 12:48:09 PM EST

i deal with the whole "invited, not invited" thing in my rant

can you tell a seven year old they were adequately informed of what to expect when seeing the movie?

additionalyly, i can't see how anyone can get around this equation: half a second of uninvited boob is FAR LESS PROBLEMATIC than two hours of invited violence


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Thats a seperate issue (none / 0) (#445)
by CENGEL3 on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 03:44:58 PM EST

It's a parents responsibility to make decisions for thier children until those children are mature enough to make decisions themselves.

You seem to be saying that parents who take thier young kids to see the Passion are exercizing extremely poor judgement. Even though I haven't seen the movie myself, everything I know about it tells me that you are likely 100% correct. I think someone would have to be pretty whacked to take a young kid to that movie (Though I don't imagine it's any worse then something like Kill Bill).

However, I'm only responsible for making those kind of decisions for my own kids. It's not within my perview (or yours) to make that sort of call for anyone elses kids. In the case of the movie, the tools are there for parents to make that sort of call, wheras with the halftime show they weren't. That's the bottom line.

[ Parent ]

now we're getting somewhere (none / 0) (#461)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 04:45:48 PM EST

you see, you are not homing in correctly on what i have a problem with

my problem is not with the violence in the film

nor is my problem with the necessity to deal with sex with care

my problem is with the utter lack of parity by some people in how they deal with exposure to sex, versus exposure to violence

that's an issue, no?

in other words, exactly WHY is exposure to the sort of violence in the movie not dealt with the sort of tact and sophistication as your hypothetical parents detail for exposure to sex?

why do the same people (the religious right) who see a boob, and react with utter horror, utterly abandon the same revulsion when cavaziel's rib cage hangs out of his skin (take the kids!)

that utterly flabbergasts me

that honestly floors me, it dumbfounds me with the chasm of hypocrisy there


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Cultural Taboos (none / 0) (#471)
by CENGEL3 on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 05:42:08 PM EST

People have all sorts of different cultural taboos. I'm honestly repulsed by the sight of chopped liver (i.e. patte). Just looking at it makes me want to heave.

If you stuck me and a handfull of people who had a similar dislike of liver off on an isolated island somewhere and came back a couple thousand years later you would probably find a society where eating liver was considered a "sin" and there were laws against the public display of liver patte.

[ Parent ]

bullshit (none / 0) (#481)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 06:21:58 PM EST

fear-of-liver, or whatever effects you is a very specific thing

sex and violence spans the entirety of human existence... no, the entirety of animal life on planet earth!

dealing with sex and dealing with violence are the central themes of the formation of human psychology

culture effects it, but if you are going to tell me next that a given culture has a taboo of sex but not of violence, then i will say that entire culture is hypocritical and wrong and i don't know why you are defending it

your fear of liver is a weird esoteric thing

i'm talking about huge global themes of human existence

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I don't speak for anyone else (none / 0) (#630)
by Cro Magnon on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 10:51:56 AM EST

But, personally, I think there is too much sex AND violence in Hollywood. Just as Janet's boobs didn't belong on family TV, I also absolutly would NOT take my GF's 10 year old niece to Passion. Or any of several other violent shows.
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
Of bodily organs (2.75 / 8) (#238)
by UncannyVortex on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 04:39:24 PM EST

How a penis, a symbol of pleasure for the young and horny, a completely natural, God and/ or evolution-given organ, worn on the crotches of half of the human population, can be a fount of evil if displayed publicly, is utterly beyond me.

I agree but ... (none / 1) (#430)
by alby on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 02:57:01 PM EST

... would you want to live in a world where half the people walked around naked all the time?

--
Alby
[ Parent ]

You bet! (none / 1) (#459)
by zarr on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 04:36:41 PM EST

... would you want to live in a world where half the people walked around naked all the time

Assuming, of course, we're talking about the other half

[ Parent ]

What harm could it do? (none / 0) (#467)
by handslikesnakes on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 05:12:45 PM EST

Apart from frostbite.

(yeah, I live north of the 49th... how'd you guess?)



[ Parent ]
Only if it's the attractive half (n/t) (none / 0) (#641)
by Handyman on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 06:06:48 PM EST



[ Parent ]
*sighs* you go to sleep for the night (1.28 / 7) (#239)
by esrever on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 04:41:55 PM EST

And when you wake up CTS has another of his bile-filled rants on the FP.  Nice one CTS, this must be the crowning moment of your trolling career.

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
i thought i was just being myself (none / 1) (#383)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 12:45:46 PM EST

but to some people with small egos i apparently exist to torture them

try to get an ego which doesn't depend upon other people's egos please

kuro5hin is a debate and discussion site, not an ego triage system


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

LOL you are a hate monger, not a debater [nt] (none / 1) (#518)
by esrever on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 12:23:57 AM EST



Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]
Wow, great rant. (none / 2) (#241)
by Fon2d2 on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 05:08:14 PM EST

That's the kind of diatribe I dream of writing. I don't have any of the links, but others in the past have linked to webpages which discuss Western culture's demonization of sex. It seemed, according to one of the websites, that studies into the repression of sex and its effects on peace and violence in a society were unduly cut short by heavy religious pressure. Possibly because the results weren't what the hard right wing politicians wanted to hear: that repression of sexuality and sexual expression leads to a more violent society.

Your view of Jesus is almost exactly the same as mine: that his story and his teachings are good things to study in a non-religious and non-fanatical context. So it concerned me when almost right away in the Book of Matthew, in what I recognized as the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus seemed to take the position of extreme sexual repression. That the person you marry is the only person you should ever have any kind of sexual intimacy with, even after death or divorce. That to even think or feel attraction toward another was to commit adultry and sin against God. And at least with the wording in my Bible, the language was extremely sexist in that the man had more rights in this area than the woman. I cannot reconcile this part of his speech with the rest of his teachings, which seem to me so lucid and wise. They do seem, however, very much in line with the extremely religious, popular view that even a flash of a nipple, for narry a second, is a grave sin towards God.

I would call the final moments of Jesus' life sadistic, but not sado-masochistic. I do not believe that Jesus enjoyed his death on the cross. But I think the point of the story is that Jesus' motives were so pure, his loyalty so deep, that he would not abandon his cross, and thus humanity, even under the most brutal of circumstances. It's an issue of faith as I see it: faith in his own people so deep he would stand up and face them and succumb to them even as they beat him to death. Jesus was tempted by the devil three times, but this is like another temptation, and the movie made a lot out of this, placing the devil in scenes where he did not appear in the Bible. Temptation because I believe Jesus could've come down from that cross any time he wished and yet he stayed there despite an overwhelming display of a lack faith in himself. It reminds a story a friend told me of a Buddhist monk who's greatest fear while being tortured was that he would lose the ability to feel compassion for his torturers.

So the whole scene is necessarily violent, as if to say, this is the truth of the world, violence exists just as much as love, so why should we shun it, lest we lose our understanding of it? Despite that though, the purpose of seeing the violence is lost without the proper context, and thus R is a very appropriate rating for the movie. If you're too young to understand the context of the violence, then you should wait to see it.

Sure. (none / 0) (#267)
by bakuretsu on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 06:55:04 PM EST

...I believe Jesus could've come down from that cross any time he wished and yet he stayed there despite an overwhelming display of a lack faith in himself.
Next you'll tell me that Moses could have just parted the Red Sea or something...

-- Airborne
    aka Bakuretsu
    The Bailiwick -- DESIGNHUB 2004
[ Parent ]
Doesn't matter if it's real. (none / 0) (#355)
by Fon2d2 on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 10:36:22 AM EST

The story functions just as well as to convey its message about the importance of faith as just that: a story. The point is he could've avoided the whole thing had he chosen to, and even if you believe he couldn't come down from the cross, the story still provided him with plenty of foresight and opportunity to avoid his fate. But I chose to believe he could come down for two reasons.

Reason the 1st: Jesus, as the Son of God, is imbued with supernatural powers throughout the story of the new testament. He cures sicknesses with only a touch at a time when those sicknesses had no cures. He has foreknowledge of the future, and knows who will betray him and who will deny him and what will happen to him if he goes to trial under Pontious Pilate. And he rises from the dead, leaving no Earthly body behind him. But most importantly for this point I think are the instances when the Devil tempts him. The Devil tells him to jump to his death since he would be safe because he knows, and Jesus knows, that angels would catch him. If we are to stay in line with these observations than we should believe that Jesus has a power beyond death and beyond this world and if he could save himself from falling to his death, why should we not then believe he could have saved himself from the cross?

Reason the 2nd: Having the ability to come down the entire time adds strength to the story. It would be one thing to say he choose not to turn back before he suffered the brutality of his beating. That still leaves the opportunity for him to regret his decision after it's too late. But this is not the message of this part of the Gospel. If we say he didn't have the ability, how do we know he wouldn't have come down had he had the chance? Now on the other hand if we say he did have the ability, now we know that for every agonizing second, and for every doubt that crossed his mind, he was choosing to stay there, because of his faith in us. That's important because faith is one of the most necessary virtues of human nature and yet is one of the easiest to falter. It's a strong message

So, assuming you're not just trolling, then maybe you can see that I'm taking this all from the aspect that circletimessquare put forth in the original article: that is studying Jesus' life as a lesson of strength and tolerance.

[ Parent ]

True. (none / 0) (#632)
by bakuretsu on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 11:37:39 AM EST

You're right, anything can happen in stories. I believe wholeheartedly that the power of the Jesus myth (regardless of how much of it is based in fact) is something to be respected and acknowledged. The teachings of Jesus Christ, the legend (once again, separated from Jesus Christ the man, whom we may never truly know, now separated by generations of information manipulation), are moving, applicable, and overall very "good." Tolerance, love, etc.; these are virtues we should all embrace.

My point is that the story really goes wrong when people start interpreting it literally, and my Moses quip was meant to convey that. Those who focus on the EVENTS of the Biblical myth, and not their MEANINGS, are those who do not truly reap the rewards of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I challenge you to disagree with that.

-- Airborne
    aka Bakuretsu
    The Bailiwick -- DESIGNHUB 2004
[ Parent ]

Why would I disagree with that? (none / 0) (#697)
by Fon2d2 on Wed Apr 21, 2004 at 12:22:28 PM EST

Who knows what really happened? Now there's evidence that Moses and his people walked across some reef or sandbar or something when there was a strong wind. There's also evidence the Black Sea was created by a huge flooding of the Mediterranean around the time of Noah. It's all interesting stuff but it belies the point of those stories. Read the Gospel according to Marc. Jesus did not rise at the end. So what's with Matthew, Luke, and John? Creative interpretation? Possibly. There's evidence they were based on Marc (the first Gospel written). Each Gospel was written for a specific audience as well. Take a look at Matthew with its boring lineage of Jesus, tying him all the way back to Israel. For Matthew, that was important, but it's not in the other Gospels, and really, what do I care? When you take all those things into account, I think along with all the translatiosn and rewordings the Bible has gone through, I think it's pretty obvious it should not be taken literally. Sorry if I imbued that I felt any differently.

[ Parent ]
From a Christian's perspective (2.57 / 7) (#251)
by jeduthun on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 05:54:59 PM EST

I'm a Christian, so let me toss in my two cents on the whole "sex in movies" vs. "violence in movies" thing.  People tend to think that "sex is good in most contexts" and "violence is bad in most contexts".  From a Christian perspective, these are both partially wrong.

One of the teachings of Christianity is that it is wrong to lust after a woman who is not your wife.  This is why they think watching porn is wrong.  It's not that sex is wrong or sinful; in fact, the Bible celebrates God's gift of sexuality (re: Song of Solomon).  It's that your sexual passion should be only aroused and fulfilled within the context of God's institution of marriage.  Watching porn is likely to fill you with lust for women who are not your wife, and inflame you with desires that reduce your self-control.  Why would you want to put yourself in that place?  God provided a safe haven for the exploration and enjoyment of sexuality, and that safe haven is marriage.

Which one of you guys can honestly tell me his wife wouldn't be delighted if he stopped watching porn, ogling other women, and decided to enjoy no women but her?  

And on the violence issue: violence is sometimes necessary.  It is not inherently wrong even though it is often used wrongly.  Sometimes violence is necessary to correct a problem.  

Now, I agree that overall we are too sensitive to sexuality and too desensitized to violence.  But let's not have any illusions that sex is inherently righter than violence.  Both sex and violence are morally neutral; it is the context in which they occur that makes them wrong or right.  And in films, sex occurs in a morally wrong context far more often than violence.

ummm... (none / 3) (#256)
by romperstomper on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 06:15:49 PM EST

And in films, sex occurs in a morally wrong context far more often than violence.

Excuse me for one second...

                            ...HAHAHAHA!!!

But on a serious note, do you think men wouldn't lust for women other than their wives if there was no porn?  Species wouldn't have propogated very well if we didn't.

[ Parent ]

porn is just part of the picture (none / 0) (#281)
by jeduthun on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:15:51 PM EST

But on a serious note, do you think men wouldn't lust for women other than their wives if there was no porn?

Of course not.  Men are going to lust after women.  It's how we're wired.  Not watching porn will not eliminate the problem; it will merely remove one source of the problem.  

[ Parent ]

That's assuming... (none / 1) (#427)
by DavidTC on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 02:48:50 PM EST

...that lust is a problem.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]
Re: From a Christian's perspective (3.00 / 5) (#259)
by drsmithy on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 06:26:39 PM EST

Which one of you guys can honestly tell me his wife wouldn't be delighted if he stopped watching porn, ogling other women, and decided to enjoy no women but her?

Me. Well, she isn't my wife (yet), but she certainly has no problems whatsoever with me watching porn, particularly since she often watches it with me.

I'm not alone either - a significant proportion of pornography is supposedly viewed by couples.

Sometimes violence is necessary to correct a problem.

Sometimes, but not often.

Both sex and violence are morally neutral; it is the context in which they occur that makes them wrong or right.

It boggles the mind that you could consider sex and violence morally equivalent. Sex is an *overwhelmingly* good thing, only in a few rarely-occurring instances (eg: rape, child abuse) could one rationally argue it is bad. Violence, OTOH, is *rarely* a good thing and in the vast majority of cases is both unnecessary and wrong.

And in films, sex occurs in a morally wrong context far more often than violence.

Well, if you're a Christian that's probably true. For those with a somewhat more enlightened view of sexuality, it's a ridiculous assertion.

[ Parent ]

Hi (none / 3) (#265)
by Bodot on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 06:45:48 PM EST

Which one of you guys can honestly tell me his wife wouldn't be delighted if he stopped watching porn, ogling other women, and decided to enjoy no women but her?

Me. We watch porn together, ogle women together, and enjoy other women together. And yes, these were originally her ideas.

let's not have any illusions that sex is inherently righter than violence.

Did you really just say "righter"?

And in films, sex occurs in a morally wrong context far more often than violence.

I'm amazed that you said this so could you please explain further.

And while you're at it could you please define "right" and "wrong" for me? You seem to assume we're all following your moral guidelines when in reality many of us aren't sure what they are or why you feel they're valid.

[ Parent ]
sexual context; moral guidelines (none / 1) (#276)
by jeduthun on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:12:51 PM EST

I'm amazed that you said this so could you please explain further.

How much sex in movies is between a married couple?  According to Christian teaching, only sex between married people is permissible.

And while you're at it could you please define "right" and "wrong" for me? You seem to assume we're all following your moral guidelines when in reality many of us aren't sure what they are or why you feel they're valid.

The title of my original comment was "from a Christian's perspective", so you may assume that I'm getting my guidelines from the mainstream Christian teachings on issues.

I'm not trying to convert anyone here.  I just think that Christianity takes a beating it doesn't deserve on this issue.  If you want to ridicule our stance, at least understand it first!

[ Parent ]

His Question (none / 0) (#358)
by virg on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 11:44:09 AM EST

> How much sex in movies is between a married couple? According to Christian teaching, only sex between married people is permissible.

I agree that this is Christian teaching, but it's not really the question he asked. Your original comment was
And in films, sex occurs in a morally wrong context far more often than violence.
and the question wasn't about the amount of un-Christian sex occurring, but with your statement that there's more un-Christian sex than un-Christian violence. I'm afraid I'll have to agree with him on this, since there's usually quite a bit of fighting and killing going on, even by the "good guys", and very little of it seems to be what a good Christian would consider unaviodable or justified.

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
There's a significant portion (none / 0) (#628)
by Kax on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 10:44:22 AM EST

of the population, who because they were ugly as kids (or adults) or have some sort of other repressed stuff going on, likes to have various 'enlightened' or 'deviant' views on sexuality that make them feel normal or attractive.

A good example of this is the swing scene.  'nuff said.

Another good example are the suicide girls.  Some of them are moderately attractive, but very, very broken.

Watching porn together is no big deal, but if you are married and find yourself consistently jacking off to porn solo, or find porn a necessary part of your sexual life, yeah, I'm sure you'd agree that was a problem.

The moral issue with porn is financing of the industry, which even on its best day still employs and caters to those with low self-esteem.

[ Parent ]

Yeah, but (none / 0) (#631)
by Kax on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 10:56:14 AM EST

judging from your previous entries on this site you and your wife are hardly qualified to comment as the 'average couple on the street' and not in the flattering way you desperately want it to be.  I see you've been married for a little over a year; please let us know when your breathtakingly needy selves get the divorce.

[ Parent ]
Baffling teaching (3.00 / 4) (#269)
by Nigga on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 06:58:33 PM EST

One of the teachings of Christianity is that it is wrong to lust after a woman who is not your wife.

How is it wrong to aknowledge something that you simply cannot help. Can you honestly say with a straight face that we all choose to lust after hot women we see everywhere? I automatically lust there's no choice involved. Also, how the hell is somebody going to find a wife if they aren't supposed to lust over anybody but their wife? Are you supposed to marry her without ever having lusted over her? Now that seems moraly wrong to me.

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

natural != moral (none / 0) (#271)
by jeduthun on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:08:34 PM EST

How is it wrong to aknowledge something that you simply cannot help.

Did you ever want to beat anyone to a bloody pulp?  There are all kinds of primal desires we have that are morally wrong to carry out.  The fact that we have the desires naturally doesn't mean that they're good or acceptable.  The sin is not having the desire; the sin is entertaining the desire or, worse, actually acting on it.  

[ Parent ]

right.. (none / 1) (#275)
by Nigga on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:12:06 PM EST

but he said that it's wrong to simply lust not that it's wrong to act on that lust... I don't think there's any value in denying one's feelings or having them rejected.. This turns people into basketcases.. People's feelings should be validated and accepted and discussed.. not bottled up and ignored. Acting on feelings in an unfair way is wrong... but simply feeling isn't... at least I can't see any benefit coming from pretending they are wrong.

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

my understanding of this goes something... (none / 0) (#528)
by SaintPort on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 02:21:24 AM EST

like this:

There were in Jesus' day, and still are in this day, self-justified folks who believed that they were guilty of no sin. They needed no salvation and no saviour.

Some of these upstanding folks used masterbation to help them deal with sexual urges, and since their folly was solitary, they felt they were still guiltless.

Jesus' point was simply that everyone needs redemption, everyone needs salvation.

I honestly do not believe He wanted to make people into repressed basket-cases.

Much better to claim Jesus' blood as your method of salvation than to claim 'only in my mind'.

P.S.  I'm not just making this up as I go along. I have read of Rabbis who taught things like, 'If all men would relieve themselves 3 ways in the morning, there would be no more war'. Which might be a wise saying, but certainly ties into Jesus' point.

--
Search the Scriptures
Start with some cheap grace...Got Life?

[ Parent ]

Unless you are married. (none / 2) (#299)
by Ogygus on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 08:22:12 PM EST

The sin is not having the desire; the sin is entertaining the desire or, worse, actually acting on it.

Matthew 5:27 "You have heard that it was said, `Do not commit adultery. 5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

The Net Bible

So according to Jesus, simply looking at another woman with desire in his heart has committed adultery. The sin is in having the desire. All that is lacking is the opportunity.

The mice will see you now.
[ Parent ]
Keep your morals away from my porn (none / 1) (#279)
by omegadan on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:13:49 PM EST

Christians = Hypocrites

Religion is a gateway psychosis. - Dave Foley
[ Parent ]

I (3.00 / 4) (#296)
by johnny on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 08:20:16 PM EST

Which one of you guys can honestly tell me his wife wouldn't be delighted if he stopped watching porn, ogling other women, and decided to enjoy no women but her?

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and presume to speak for Dear Wife Betty, which I don't often do. But inasmuch as I've been married to her for nearly a quarter of a century, and monogamously involved with her for longer than that, I think I know this territory a little.

If I were to stop looking at other women, I think my wife would be heartbroken. I mean, we both know that day will come. And we also know that the day may come when I'll have to wear Depends(tm) "undergarments". And certainly the day will come when I will die. And each of these events will represent a dimunition of our intense relationship.

I mean really: she knows me as a horny old goat. She knew that when she married me. She plays on this. Sometimes she points out a hot jogger to me --"Jesus, John, look at her! My goodness she jiggles! And a pretty face too! What do you think of her?"

Can you concieve that maybe my attraction to other women might actually make my fidelity more meaningful to my wife? As the song says, "A dog goes chasing cars, don't mean he wants to drive!"

Oh well blah blah blah. I haven't seen Gibson's film and I don't want to. I don't know if I'm a Christian -- certainly I'm not by convential definitions-- (but I sure as all fuck have a Jesus obsession, as readers of my books have surely noticed). I know Christian scripture better than 19 out of 20 self-described Christians, and I know Christian history and theology better than 99 out of 100 S-D Christians. For whatever that's worth.

I like traditional, heterosexual porn. Playful porn that has some intelligence to it. Most of the movies I know were made in the 80's, which I have heard was some kind of golden age of porn. I like "Dixie Ray, Hollywood Star" with John Leslie and Lisa DeLeeuw.(sp?). I don't like porn that involves humiliation or nonconsensual acts of any kind. In fact, such stuff revolts me.

I think porn is for adults, and I think alcohol is for adults, and I think tobacco is for adults, and I think the reasons are obvious. I have no problem with censorship to keep pornography from children. Nor do I have a problem with laws to keep tobacco from children.

I think that snuff movies are inappropriate for adults and especially for children. Even if the snufee is Jesus. Especially if the snuffee is Jesus.

yr frn,
jrs
Get your free download of prizewinning novels Acts of the Apostles and Che
[ Parent ]

God's institution of marriage? (none / 2) (#304)
by fifi on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 09:26:19 PM EST

Can anyone point me where God's institution of marriage is mentionned in the bible?

Because I could not find it. The bible talks about a man's wife and a wife's husband, but that's pretty much it.

And as far as I can remember the marriage itself became a roman catholic sacrament in the middle ages (between 500 AD and 1000 AD).

[ Parent ]

And... (none / 2) (#428)
by DavidTC on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 02:51:47 PM EST

...it tends ot talk about it in property terms, i.e., you have to pay a girl's father if you have sex with her.

Frankly, I find that concept rather offensive. Men do not own their wifes or daughters.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

wrong (none / 0) (#382)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 12:43:38 PM EST

sex and violence would be expressed in equal parts in any moral system which had a true understanding of their nature and proper role in this world

a moral system that skews expression towards violence and away from sex is therefore fundamentally flawed and not truly moral or just


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I don't like Biblical morality (none / 2) (#418)
by davros4269 on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 02:15:02 PM EST

The comment you mentioned about women and how they would feel about men watching less porn is misleading. I'm of the mind that they should watch MORE porn together with their mate and have better sex. Might the real issue here not be that men and women have different interests and don't spend enough time together? Interesting opinions, both ways. I could argue that the very fact that some American women dislike their mate's watching porn is a problem in and of itself, but again, just my opinion...

Context - right, good point. Of course this stuff is subjective - I don't accept the notion of any kind of "absolute morality" and I'd put forth that the "morality" of the Bible is wrong, wrong in my opinion and wrong according to research, which I believe backs up the negative impact of violence with the virtually non-impact of sex.

I know, I know, I'm wrapping this in subjectivity - example, you could argue that for whatever reason if sex in the media leads to more divorce that would be bad, and not maybe "more bad" than someone getting into a fight on the playground because of violence in the media...

I'd just like to say that as a non-Christian, the Bible and it's morality doesn't get a Free Pass, in my opinion, nor should it get special treatment and be some kind of default code of conduct.


Will you squirm when you are pecked? Quack.
[ Parent ]

Thanks. (none / 0) (#422)
by Kiyooka on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 02:30:03 PM EST

Thanks for the clarification of the Christian view on sexuality and lust. As I'm not Christian, I thought the stereotype that Christians were generally opposed to sexuality was true. Now I see the attitude was just to help us remain focused and pure of heart, like all good spiritual endeavors should.

I'd like to qualify what you said about violence though:

And on the violence issue: violence is sometimes necessary. It is not inherently wrong even though it is often used wrongly. Sometimes violence is necessary to correct a problem.

Yes, violence is sometimes necessary, but only if it reduces the overall level of violence. Disabling an armed and dangerous attacker and pinning him down is a good example, but something more drastic like warfare requires extremely drastic circumstances to justify (e.g. WW2 is well justified). Violence is sometimes the most expedient and effective -- and sometimes necessary -- solution, but it is nevertheless always an unfortunate strategy whenever it is used, and after using it, the person who committed the violence should not celebrate his victory/dominance but feel regret what the situation had come to. I say this as a (somewhat) seasoned practitioner of karate. It may sound paradoxical to some who don't study a "spiritual" martial art (like karate, but not tai-bo or boxing), but it's largely because of karate I've learned to keep violence to a minimum. It's always pointless and stupid and harmful.

As Taoists say, "know evil, shun evil"...



[ Parent ]
Song of songs (none / 0) (#713)
by epepke on Fri May 28, 2004 at 02:43:15 AM EST

It's not that sex is wrong or sinful; in fact, the Bible celebrates God's gift of sexuality (re: Song of Solomon).

Exqueeze me? I baking powder? How many concubines is Solomon supposed to have had? That is, women he regularly plooked that weren't his wives (of which he had plenty, too)? Clue brick: the number was greater than zero. Even greater, probably, than the number of porn starlets in films most people have seen.

Read your own book, Christians.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Dammit, I haven't seen it yet (none / 1) (#272)
by GhostfacedFiddlah on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:08:38 PM EST

The gallons of blood flow, the breaking bones crack, the Roman henchmen cackle at their inflicted pain, the skin is torn and pulped, the viscera and the rib cage underneath is exposed...

Ruined the whole thing for me - made it worse by calling it a "snuff film" - now I know he bloddy dies at the end.

...bastard...

How can it be a snuff film if he's resurrected? nt (none / 1) (#277)
by Nigga on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:13:01 PM EST


--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

But that's the thing - in the movie he isn't! (nt) (none / 1) (#306)
by magney on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 09:54:55 PM EST


Do I look like I speak for my employer?
[ Parent ]

They don't resurrect him in the movie? (none / 1) (#325)
by JayGarner on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 01:02:33 AM EST

Are you serious? That's like doing a Wright Brothers biopic where they roll the credits and end the film when it's still 1902. Or an E! true Hollywood story of Tom Hanks, ending right after the 'Bosom Buddies' years. WTF?

[ Parent ]
yeah they do... nt (none / 0) (#401)
by Nigga on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 01:17:56 PM EST

That's what you get for trying to rush out before the rest of the crowd does.

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

you said 'the religious right' (2.77 / 9) (#273)
by kpaul on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:09:34 PM EST

what about followers of Jesus, the Son of God, who are more liberal like He was? ;)

for the record, i haven't seen 'the passion' and most likely won't. i prayed about it and was warned by the Holy Spirit to be careful.

it irks me with them selling 'nails' - people telling me i'm not really saved because i don't want to see the movie.

it's made what, half a billion dollars? if you love me and follow me, Jesus said, the world will hate you.

myself and other lambs believe the movie is part of the endtimes deception, leading to a false revival, apostasy...

not saying don't go see the movie. do pray about it, though, and seek the Lord's advice before lining up to see it just because 'everyone else is doing it...'

narrow is the path and few there be that find it...


2014 Halloween Costumes

kpaul, you're the coolest person on this site (none / 0) (#381)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 12:35:54 PM EST

mad props

the thinking christian

as long as there are christians like you, the creed will last forever

the unthinking sheep will drive the belief system into the ground

keep it up kpaul, much respect ;-)

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Man, it's like a broken record (2.18 / 11) (#283)
by rho on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:16:46 PM EST

Here's one of my favorite howlers from this ignorant screed:

Before me on the screen for the length of the fare was a long advertisement for brutal sadomasochism.

Here, circletimessquare gives us a peek into where his mind truly is. Basically, he's a sexual deviant. This is why he finds regulation of open porn from the public airwaves so offensive--he desperately seeks reassurance that it's not just him who likes to have a hairy-chested man wearing a hockey mask and shin guards squeeze his nuts in a vise. Deep down inside, he knows there's something not-quite-right about such things, but he can more easily ignore an unquiet conscience if you see ball-breaking right in the middle of Will and Grace.

It's not sadomasochism. It's not an image of a bunny or a butterfly on that card the nice guy with the beard holds up for you every week, either. It's just an inkblot, and you're telling us all about yourself when you read into it what doesn't exist.

The most cursory study of the New Testament would put lie to the idea that it's sadomasochism being portrayed here. This is something that fifth graders have no trouble understanding in Sunday Schools all across the nation. Only you, circletimessquare: Internet jackhole, comes to the conclusion that it's an advertisement for sadomasochism. By your logic, the aformentioned Will and Grace is a recruitment tool for the International Gay Conspiracy.

The notion that Jesus was all sweet and tender is also belied by simple reading. He did not offer salvation to all, He did not love all people equally, and He even cursed a fig tree when it provided no fruit to munch on. Morons (that's you) try to take Jesus and treat him like a Gumby doll, bending and twisting him to fit your idea of what He is/was/should be. The argument is similar to the infantile argument against the existence of God in general: If there were a God, there wouldn't be all this suffering!

This bit of baloney relies on two assumptions: 1) that God is just like you, which indicates a massive superiority complex, and 2) that you think you're deserving of good things because you're such a swell guy, which indicates that you're full of shit. The Judeo-Christian God gave us 10 Simple Rules for Being Good People. If you break even one of those comandments, just once, by that same law you should be stuck head first to the Burning Dung Room in Hell. Ever lie? Jack off to Carmen Electra? Skip church? Welp, boy, you're going to Hell. Enjoy your stay, wear sunblock. Gosh, that's pretty severe, don't you think? Well, see, therein lies the point: deep down inside we're just not good people. We're teh sukc. Spawn-camping, wall-hakking aim-bots. If we're ever going to get to Heaven, it's going to take something pretty impressive.

And, lo, the point cometh nigh. What happened in The Passion is what every one of us deserve. Instead, Jesus did it for us. Jesus is not your buddy, he's not your co-pilot, he's the stopper that keeps you from swirling clockwise down the drain.
"The thought of two thousand people munching celery at the same time [horrifies] me." --G.B. Shaw

jesus was my co-pilot until we crashed and (none / 1) (#287)
by Nigga on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:23:44 PM EST

I ate him. By the way.. a brilliant rebuttle. I'd rather expose kids to passion then expose them to CTS's rhetoric. I'm sorry but I didn't see any chainsaws in that movie.

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

Here's my thinking... (none / 0) (#295)
by fenix down on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 08:13:56 PM EST

Okay, so we suck.  A whooooooole lot.  God, being infinitely infinite and all, can't forgive it unless he kills his son.  That seems pretty weird, to say the least, but I'm willing to assume there's some reasoning there.

But here's the thing I don't get:  why do you have to worship him?  It's always taken as fact that you have to worship Jesus to be saved by him.
But failing to worship Jesus can only really be considered ingratitude.  Can ingratitude, even theoretically infinite ingratitude, really be seen as worse than every other sin mankind commits?  Frankly, I'd call that infinitely petty.

[ Parent ]

Shit, that's me! Holy fuck? (none / 1) (#328)
by fenix down on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 01:33:30 AM EST

What the hell you been doing to the database, Rusty?  I mean, I load up on shrooms, steal a Dave Chappelle joke to disguise the fact that I have nothing to contribute to this thread, go off to see Hellboy, come back fucked up, go to sleep on the floor, and then wake up to find this crap that sounds like the kind of hollow pseudo-theology I use but I have no memory of writing.  If it were just 30 minutes later I'd be sure, but hell, I might've written it based on the time stamp.  I don't know when I fucking left.

By tomorrow I'll probably have the cognizance to figure out if it's my roomate or somebody fucking with me, but now I gotta go to sleep still burning off shrooms and having needlessly vivid fantasies about my new case of schizophrenia.  I'm changing my goddamn password either way.  I just hope I can remember what the fuck I changed it to tomorrow.  I'd write it down, but in case it is schizophrenia, I'd rather not have Tyler Durden on here orchestrating terrorist attacks all night.  I'm fucking tired enough already.

[ Parent ]

Where to start (none / 0) (#482)
by rho on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 06:26:28 PM EST

Not sure why I'd bother with a person who thinks fucking with his brain is swell. Maybe I'm feeling chariable.

Your post above this one asks whether it is petty or not. Ask your dog if it's petty to have to sit, shake, roll over and speak for a dry-ass Milkbone. The analogy isn't 1:1, but it gets the point across. In order for you to say it's petty, you'd have to have direct insight into the mind of God to know whether it is or not. Good work, if you can get it, I guess, but the reality is that you are just expressing the same old argument that I dispute in the OP: you are not God, God is not like you, so trying to fit God into what you think he should be is merely an exercise in egomania.

Chow down on those shrooms--they will make you a better person, you know.
"The thought of two thousand people munching celery at the same time [horrifies] me." --G.B. Shaw
[ Parent ]

I suppose I have to defend myself (none / 0) (#610)
by fenix down on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 04:27:41 AM EST

It turns out that first post was part of an elaborate (and how!) plot to drive me insane, and is, in fact, a post of mine from Slashdot circa 1998 or something.

In any case, since these words are technically mine, albeit from my poor, misshapen youth, I'll defend them.  Or perhaps just offend your objections to them, either one.

I think you're pretty much right with the egomania.  I've found a comfortable place with me and my perception of god, sometimes I accept his existence and sometimes I don't, but my basic assumption is that he is like me on some level, because otherwise I have to deal with the fact that god is evil.  It doesn't really matter much to me if I'm objectively the evil one, in my head he's still a son of a bitch, and in that sort of situation I think, for the moment, I'm happier with hell.

I'm not getting much of anywhere here, but I think I'll just say that I accepted that I don't know shit a long time ago.  Thanks to that handy egomania, I've also accepted that nobody I'm going to meet, nothing I'm going to read, and nothing I'm going to work out on my own is going to help me with that.  I can hope that some sort of post-death revelation will get me somewhere, but I'm not counting on it.  For the purposes of life here on earth, the fact is that god is a tool.  Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain is shit.  The name is all we have, and vain purposes are all we have for it.  My only god is my perception of god, my name for him.  Circle uses him to make fun of Australians, you and I use him for intellectual wankery, none of these are any better than another, it's all shit.  I don't know who Jesus is, I don't even know if it's worth trying to find out.  At this point, I think the only responsible thing is to just fuck it all and do what I think is right.

Chow down on those shrooms--they will make you a better person, you know.
"The thought of two thousand people munching celery at the same time [horrifies] me."--G.B. Shaw

Baby, you ain't kidding.

[ Parent ]

the guy says my reading of the inkblot sucks (none / 1) (#380)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 12:33:39 PM EST

while expressing the unerring perfectness of his own reading of the inkblot

as if somehow his is perfect and mine sucks, end of story

all you demonstrate is a colossal arrogance: "i'm right, you're wrong"

so you don't debate, or attempt to persuade, you just stand there and announce your righteousness and deride any other possible point of view

i at least will talk to others and respect them for having different beliefs than mine even while i tell them they are wrong, and why i think so

you're just content to announce the impossibility of anyone else having a different point of view than you and the impossibility of any value in my point of view

hello, fascist fuck


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Oh, jeez, I hurt your widdle feelings (none / 1) (#480)
by rho on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 06:19:56 PM EST

After purposely authoring inciteful rhetoric--The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre is your idea of quiet, meaningful, contemplative debate?--now, all of a sudden, you want to sit down have a nice chat.

Yeah, I call bullshit.

You're a cock--nothing wrong with that, except you're also a mighty windbag, a blowhard suffering from verbal diarrhea, a donnybrook of fucktardism. Next time, try making the barest of efforts to understand the other side instead of caricaturing it, and you won't be called out for being a shithead. Complaining about it just makes you look like a fucking whiner. Way to go, chief.
"The thought of two thousand people munching celery at the same time [horrifies] me." --G.B. Shaw
[ Parent ]

haha (none / 0) (#531)
by coward anonymous on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 03:25:49 AM EST

There is nothing wrong with his nuts getting squeezed. You don't like it, I don't like it, but if he likes it why do you care? Let him enjoy his nuts being squeezed by a hairy-chested man. Why are you so worried about his precious nuts?

You complain about morons with superiority complexes molding God into myriad shapes and then proceed to match the mold exactly while inventing some commandments on the way.

I suppose you are so special that God went out of his way to give you 10 commandments to live by.  Why? I don't give the ants in my neighborhood commandments. I step on them without noticing.

I was not aware that jacking off violated a commandment, nor am I aware of church attendance being mentioned. I never read of any of these in either set of ten commandments.

Finally, how does someone's nailing to a cross help anything? Not only does it imply that God is looking after your sorry superior ass, it is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

[ Parent ]

Passion isn't a movie... (2.75 / 8) (#291)
by the on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 07:48:16 PM EST

...it's a vehicle for evangelism.

The idea behind many forms of conversion, and also the maintenance of a religion once conversion has taken place, ranging from Wesley's fiery dramatics to emotional gospel singing, is to bring around an emotionally traumatized state of mind in the victim. Wesley would harangue his audiences with fear of burning in hell and modern churches often try to bring about extreme emotional states using music. Any time you see conversions appearing to take place you probably have a large number of people in a highly emotional situation. The fact is, when people are in such an emotional state they are susceptible to suggestion. In a different context this is caused brainwashing but with religion it's known as conversion. It's well documented and two obvious documents come to mind.

Passion is just another technique like those above. It softens up its audience by showing dramatically violent imagery. It's easy to underestimate the effect of these images. To an audience that generally avoids violent or horrific movies the level of violence in Passion can have a major effect on the victim. They can feel very uncomfortable, emotional and even nauseous. And that's the intention, to soften up an unsuspecting audience to make them susceptible to conversion.

--
The Definite Article

Kind of like the Pope mobile (none / 1) (#324)
by JayGarner on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 12:57:54 AM EST

That was terrible, I really can't stop myself.

[ Parent ]
one guy (none / 1) (#377)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 12:29:12 PM EST

one guy in a post somewhere here says the passion is a vehicle for the already converted, another guy says it is a vehicle of conversion...

whatever

it is what it is

understanding it in context versus understanding it out of context is hard enough as it is since no one can even agree on the proper context

so i prefer to look at it by itself, and by itself, it is too violent, and has none of the true spirit of what jesus christ was trying to tell us

let the contextual this that or the other thing debate rage on, it has no real probative value

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Caps, thank you! (none / 1) (#293)
by Fen on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 08:06:23 PM EST

It helps frame your sentences. Really--it's not about the Man.
--Self.
shut up! (none / 1) (#376)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 12:25:59 PM EST

what, you work for the Man?! ;-P

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
I can never tell how to categorize you. . . (none / 0) (#297)
by Fantastic Lad on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 08:21:05 PM EST

On the one hand, you're a mouthy dork with myopic political views better suited for a Parker Bros. style board game, while on the other hand, like today, I find myself agreeing with you. It seems to depend on the barometric pressure or something. . .

Anyhow. . .

I'd been wondering for a year prior to its release what would happen to the world after Gibson's film graced the screens. After the stupid crop circle film he worked on, Signs, (another god is great, don't look at the real message, fear, fear, fear film), it seemed clear that Gibson had become a tool for the Dark Side. --Unwittingly, to be certain. He strikes me as being a genuinely good-hearted guy, which is probably exactly why he was chosen to birth his most recent stupid message into the world. --According to Gibson, he was on just this side of suicide when the realization struck him that he 'had' to make Passion. When you are not aware, (or don't believe), that there are forces which can send thoughts into your head and make it feel as though you came up with them yourself, then you are prone to being a big fat tool. Poor, poor Mel. You stupid git.

My favorite part is in how Metaphor came through loud and clear on this one. The world, as I see it, is one great big intricate and messy thought form, and as such, inhales and exhales the stuff of dream. Everything which happens and exists can be read in metaphoric terms. This is the heart of Astrology, numerology and that card game.

The dude who played Christ in Passion was struck by frickin' lightning -Not once, but twice! Man, all evil messages, social programming and throngs of insane Christian sheep aside. . .

That's SO COOL!

I love it when the Universe speaks so clearly. And the Christians, in all their blistering belief, fail to take note.

-FL

Far Side (none / 0) (#312)
by onemorechip on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 10:34:51 PM EST

That so reminds me of the Far Side cartoon, with two guys convalescing in wheel chairs. One says to the other, "You're kidding, I was struck by lightning twice too!" But what they aren't aware of is that behind them, falling from the sky and headed straight for them, is a big meteor.

However, I should point out that the story you linked has the actor only being struck by lightning once. It was the assistant director who was struck twice.
--------------------------------------------------

I did my essay on mushrooms. It's about cats.
[ Parent ]

No kidding! I read the article askew. (none / 1) (#369)
by Fantastic Lad on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 12:13:13 PM EST

However, I should point out that the story you linked has the actor only being struck by lightning once. It was the assistant director who was struck twice.

Yeah, you're right. I stand corrected.

So Christ's stand-in rated one strike, while the assistant director got it twice; and the Christ double was hit in the same strike which made for the assistant director's second. I wonder what that implies. . ? --That the real evil in the manufactured story of Christ (which angers the heavens), is a director standing behind the scenes? That would make sense, both for this production and the original upon which it is based.

I wonder why Mel was left out of this little fire and brimstone luncheon. . . Perhaps because he's an innocent tool who really believes whereas the other two are making deliberate choices to present a false image to the people. . ?

I think the bible itself warned of false saviors popping up like mushrooms in the final days.

Anyway, it'd probably be interesting to know more details about these people; the irony, I'm sure, would be both delightful and revealing.

-FL

[ Parent ]

Why? (none / 0) (#478)
by Sacrifice on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 06:17:59 PM EST

One could draw such conclusions given the article, but why?  Your certainty and satisfaction is disproportionate to the likelihood; you're so pleased at what only might be.

[ Parent ]
Because. . . (none / 0) (#573)
by Fantastic Lad on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 09:35:07 AM EST

One could draw such conclusions given the article, but why? Your certainty and satisfaction is disproportionate to the likelihood; you're so pleased at what only might be.

Why? Because to question is to think, and to think is to be alive. For some reason, I find thinking about matters most others have not looked at to be more fun than considering mundane issues which have been mulled over ad-infinitum. Which television star is sleeping with which rock musician doesn't interest me nearly as much.

In any case, I am not certain about any of my suppositions, but theorizing and then looking for more data to test ideas is the only real way to groom knowledge. It's fun!

-FL

[ Parent ]

I'm sorry, the 'Universe' ??? [nt] (none / 0) (#319)
by esrever on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 11:11:02 PM EST



Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]
If you have a question, please ask it more clearly (none / 0) (#370)
by Fantastic Lad on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 12:14:41 PM EST

Thanks.

-FL

[ Parent ]

OK (none / 0) (#520)
by esrever on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 12:25:45 AM EST

""" I love it when the Universe speaks so clearly """ How exactly does the 'Universe' speak? That strikes me as a wacky sort of personification; how exactly does 'the Universe' know anything about what it means to be human?

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]
he means god, or the universe (none / 0) (#373)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 12:23:04 PM EST

kind of like saying god, or evolution, made man

they are almost the same thing, it's almost a matter of semantics- god this, the universe that

but so much is invested in the symbolism of god versus the universe when they are basically the same thing

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

it's not about me (none / 0) (#375)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 12:24:30 PM EST

it's about the words

people need to invest less significance in who is speaking, and more in what is spoken

it's what you know, not who you know that SHOULD matter in life

so stop focusing on me, and focus on what i say

i should rise and fall on the quality of the words, not some stupid reputation

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Words=Reputation (none / 0) (#429)
by tonedevil on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 02:53:28 PM EST

Especially in a discussion site such as this.

[ Parent ]
yeah but (none / 1) (#462)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 04:52:53 PM EST

you can't deny the existence of sycophants and sociopaths on this site

in other words, i agree with you, you can't stop human beings from thinking about human beings the way they do: reputation a shorthand for thought

but i do have a problem with the sort of wounded ego trolls who, delving into the same areas of psychology which motivates stalkers and sexual predators (low realization of self, covetousness), latch onto someone's identity here, and follow them around, modbombing and ridiculing them, seeking personal contact in order to inflate their fragile egos from the heat of the other person defending themselves

kuro5hin is a debate site, no?

but do we also have to babysit the failed egos and malformed personalities of this world?

if you don't do something about them, a place like this will attract them like flies, and anyone who shows a flair for personality will be eviscerated by the asocial parasites in no time


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

+1 SP unintentional irony. It's beautiful [nt] (none / 0) (#639)
by esrever on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 04:33:02 PM EST



Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]
Words (none / 0) (#574)
by Fantastic Lad on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 10:12:25 AM EST

it's about the words [. . .] people need to invest less significance in who is speaking, and more in what is spoken

I'll invest significance where I choose.

To not observe the meta-game is to ignore several rich layers of information. It's quite enlightening to see how people struggle to grow or struggle to stagnate. That's a large part of the lesson being learned around here.

You are in flux as is everybody, and we are all watching each other. Complaining about what you think SHOULD be is probably not going to have much effect on this.

i should rise and fall on the quality of the words, not some stupid reputation

A reputation which you take painfully obvious pride in. Your lesson is an interesting one.

-FL

[ Parent ]

HAHAHAHAHA that's ironic coming from your mouth (none / 0) (#638)
by esrever on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 04:31:53 PM EST

given that the first thing you do to anyone that disagrees with you is launch an ad hominem character attack.

LOL; you're always such a great source of unintentional humour.

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

Jesus is Buddha (2.00 / 4) (#298)
by tiger on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 08:21:19 PM EST

As I say in footnote 126: "Christian Lindtner, a Danish professor whose specialty is Buddhist studies, shows that much of the New Testament (its original written language is Greek) plagiarizes specific Buddhist texts written in Sanskrit."

Lindtner's website on this subject is at: http://www.jesusisbuddha.com/

About America's hostility to sex, the root cause is America's imperial nature and its natural hostility to nationalism. As I say at the end of the circumcision section in my American Culture essay: "The anti-sex policies in America serve the imperial needs of America, because sex is at the root of families, and families are at the root of nations, and nations want freedom and independence to live their own lives. Thus, whatever harms nations rooted in families, serves the American empire. Male circumcision is just one of many ways that America attacks the family."

At present, roughly three-fourths of the men in America who were born in America, are sexually mutilated (most were circumcised as infants, by force, against their will). I discuss some of the negative psychological effects of this crime-against-humanity in my recent essay The Psychological Harm of Male Circumcision.

--
Americans :— Say no to male genital mutilation. In Memory of the Sexually Mutilated Child



Doesn't make sense .. (none / 0) (#333)
by Highlander on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 03:49:45 AM EST

How exactly would mutilating its own children and harming their own families promote the "American empire" ? This would make halfway sense if you mutilated the others, but this, no way. Also, there is no proof at all that male circumcision harms the family, it might be quite the opposite.

To the first point, I think that many different and unrelated religions have the same ideas. But the linkee doesn't even compare ideas but tries to compare numbers, you can "prove" anything if you shuffle enough numbers enough. Even if that part was good, it would prove nothing but the sticking to a wacky "rhyming" scheme.

The way that author(Lindtner) looks at matches between words is just wacky. I'm sure you could take a random japanese text and turn it into the gospel if you did it the way the author does. I was actually willing to concede that he might have a point with the number 108, but looking at the way he does try correlate with randomly chosen other numbers, I just say no. I suggest he should make a fortune on the stock market if he really can make so much sense out of numbers.

Moderation in moderation is a good thing.
[ Parent ]

oh my god (none / 0) (#371)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 12:17:39 PM EST

talk about hijacking a subject matter

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Shallowness, tradition, rare justification (none / 2) (#305)
by gidds on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 09:35:10 PM EST

(Disclaimer: I haven't seen this film, so I'm really not qualified to comment on it. Not that that'll stop me, of course! But then, I have spoken at length to several friends who have, which might be better informed than some...)

(Disclosure: I'm a Christian. By which I don't mean that I was born into a Christian family (I wasn't) and go to church just because it's what my friends and community expect (they don't); nor do I mean I'm a mindless fundamentalist of the sort stereotyped to come from certain parts of the US (I don't) -- or at least, I hope I'm not! I'd certainly like to distance myself from the sorts of repression and bigotry that the post refers to.)

That said, this post agrees with much of what I've heard about the film. The impression I get is that it's an illustration of part of the story; it's not actually telling any of the story. If you know what happened, and -- much more importantly -- WHY it happened, then you may find it quite moving. People generally found it interesting to watch and not quite as harrowing as they expected. But no-one I spoke to found it spiritually moving as such; there simply wasn't much spiritual depth to it.

Out of context like that, as a purely human story, it's tragic, but nothing more -- a man unjustly tortured and killed. So what? It's only when you know some of the spiritual truths behind it that the full power and wonder start to hit you. When you realise that Christ knew what was going to happen to him, that he could have stopped it at any point but chose to undergo something like what you see in the film. That, terrible as the physical torture was, it was nothing to his spiritual agonies, suffering we can't begin to imagine. And, most importantly, WHY he chose that.

Sorry, this isn't meant to be a sermon! I'm sure anyone who's interested knows where they can find out more about it all. Anyway, I don't decry the film -- there are far worse out there, and while this one sounds a little over-eager to show the violence (and over-eggs the pudding a little in some details), it seems to have good intentions. And if nothing else, it's generating massive interest: people are thinking about these matters, asking questions, which I'm bound to think is a Good Thing(tm).

And I'm right with the poster in being annoyed that the film stops when it does. As David Coleman might say, "What happened next???" It was the events of Easter Sunday that would really turn the world around, that showed what it all meant. Without them, it's only half a story.

But of course, it's far from the first to do so; in fact, it's in a grand tradition of works treating only the events of that week, including Bach's masterworks the St Matthew Passion and the St John Passion, and more probably going all the way back to the mystery plays. In most of those cases, though, I think that's because other works covered later (and earlier) events. Bach, for example, wrote oratorios and cantatas for Easter, Christmas, Ascension, Epiphany, and literally hundreds more, so I think we can excuse his concentrating on one thing at once!

Other modern works such as Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar similarly shy away from the Resurrection, though in those cases it's probably more to do with its challenging nature. Like all such works, though, they leave me frustrated. It'd be like stopping the Lord Of The Rings just as Frodo has his change of heart in Mount Doom, or just about any book at the penultimate chapter.

Anyway, back to the movie. I don't think it's fair to call it a 'snuff' film; AFAICT, it doesn't glorify the violence, or take pleasure in the suffering. It doesn't have a high body count, with heroes who mysteriously survive completely unharmed. It's not trying to make a weak plot seem important by throwing in meaningless violence on top; on the contrary, it's showing an existing story whose very meaning is inextricably linked to suffering. Maybe all the meaningless violence in films over the years has made us forget that violence can be meaningful, and while from what I hear this film could certainly have toned it down a little, and fixed a few details, we must remember that it is a painful story. After all, crucifixion was designed to be the most excruciating, long-drawn-out, humiliating death possible.

It sounds to me as if this film is more justified than most. I'd rather take issue with all the other films which do glorify violence and take pleasure in unnecessary suffering...

(Yes, I know, this has turned out to be a very long post. Sorry to both of you still reading...)

Andy/

passion is good (none / 0) (#368)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 12:12:21 PM EST

thought is better

thought without passion is corrupt

passion without thought is blind

this movie is blind


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

jesus (2.25 / 8) (#311)
by gdanjo on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 10:26:22 PM EST

But to get right down to it, the entire movie was out of context. It had nothing essentially to do with Jesus or his message. It was simply a snuff film of his final brutal hours on the Earth.
Your declaration that the movie had nothing to do with Jesus or his message does not make it so. If you do not see this, then you do not understand christianity.

Let me put some context in for you: In Jesus' time, the Kingdom was it - if you were part of a kingdom, you were safe for you were part of a Greater Whole. If not, you are nothing. Jesus comes along and gives everyone a kingdom that is Greater than the earth-bound kingdom's to which the powerful belong. And all that is required to be a member of this kingdom is to be human.

The powerful sees this as a relative weakening of his power. Their hubris leads them to beleive that they can destroy this "power within," that all people have, by destroying the messenger. They were wrong, for the "power within" is not located in the messanger - it is, by definition, within us all.

The destruction of Jesus lead to beleif of this inward power - otherwise, why would the powerful worry? - and it is the very destruction of Jesus that opens our eyes and allows us to realise this universal truth (the implication being that if they allowed Jesus to spread his message - if they were tolerant - then there would be no need for christianity to "spread" this message).

The Passion is a movie that shows how the destruction of one single, "insignificant" man can wake these emotions within us all such that we may all be enlightened. And it does this through emotion - just as it happened 2000 years ago.

Jesus was (and still is) the most successful individualist ever.

Which is the whole crux of my problem with this movie. If "The Passion of the Christ" is the great paean to the beauty of Christianity, then all I can conclude is that spiritual beauty is somehow directly rooted in extreme violence.
If that's all you can conclude then all I can conclude is that you have not thought about this issue long and hard enough. For I can immediately think of another conclusion: that sometimes, beauty must be understood in terms of something other than beauty itself - that in this case extreme violence induced a feeling within those that witnessed it to think about others as they have never thought about them before. That extreme violence and passion are so intertwined that it would be inconceivable to have one without the other.

So yes, spiritual beauty is "somehow" rooted in extreme violence - for extreme violence abruptly contrasts against spiritual beauty, which makes it visible.

If someone took this movie to an isolated village on the Amazon whose inhabitants knew nothing of Christianity [...]
But the movie is not directed at these Amazonians, and there is a whole lot of context that one needs to know before they understand the Passion. This is not a movie about Jesus and his wonderful teachings, it's a movie about how Jesus got famous - kinda like the Rodney King beating. Sometimes you need to see the extreme behaviour to allow one to contrast this behaviour with their own internal feelings, and to honestly question whether they, in the same situation, could possibly fall into the trap of behaving the same way.

There is a lot of good in the Bible, there is much tolerance and positive messages of love in the story of the life of Jesus Christ. Most anyone would do well to study the story of Jesus Christ, if not as a Christian, then at least as a historical lesson of the strength of tolerance and compassion triumphing over wickedness and corruption. Studying Jesus's life would enrich the spiritual life of anyone.
In Science, we remember and re-teach the failings of science so that the student can understand why it failed and try to avoid the situation. This "negative" teaching is almost as important as the "positive" teaching. Similarly, to understand human emotion, we need to teach Jesus' positive message, yes, but we also need to show the negatives of his life such that we can better understand the events that lead to them.

It is funny how the keepers of the religious right spend so much of their time arguing against the rights of homosexuals, of women, of other cultures, and not dwelling one instant on the tolerance that their prophet speaks of. Religious fundamentalists, I salute you: your brainwashing makes your blindness so complete, you can watch so much violence, and call it a message of peace and love. Your hypocrisy is simply awesome, your blindness so complete it is deafening.
You would do well to separate the "religious right" from religion. One is a political movement, the other a spiritual movement.

You would also do well to separate the life of Jesus from the behaviour that was done "in his name." One is a Great Man, the other is a group of small-minded men.

Your critisism of the movie is justified; your attack on religion, and the emotive terms you use, simply displays your own bias.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT

you have just explained the emotions of martyrdom (none / 0) (#367)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 12:10:24 PM EST

but i wish that you would see that the wisdom of jesus christ goes far beyond a simple emotional manipulation

what you posit as the highest rapture of his teachings is merely the entry point for learning something a lot more important about his wisdom

you are a symbolic christian- invested emotionally and blindly, unthinkingly in the manipulation of the symbols of christianity, instead of the wisdom and teachings of the man

i would therefore posit that i am more of a christian than sheep like you ever will be, because my mind is alive, i have not turned it off in servitude of a symbol, i have the teachings of the man alive and well and functional in my mind

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You are aware that words are symbols ... (none / 0) (#455)
by pyramid termite on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 03:58:31 PM EST

... aren't you?

In any case, it's not possible to seperate the symbol of the cross from the wisdom and teachings of Jesus. I'll refer you to my previous post on this.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
wrong: it is entirely possible (none / 0) (#463)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 04:56:28 PM EST

it is entirely possible to seperate the symbol of the cross from the wisdom and teachings of Jesus

and moreso, it better be, or we are all doomed

there is nothing wrong with emotional rapture and celebration

but it must remain subservient to rational thought, or some devil who is just good at manipulating the symbols can come along and sink the bloody party

passion is good, but blind without thought

thought is good, but corrupt without passion

we need both, and thought must hold sway over passion

in a world where passion holds sway over thought, there is nought but mob rule

and mobs are ugly fickle things that turn on a dime and lay waste to entire city blocks


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You're missing the meaning of it (none / 0) (#495)
by pyramid termite on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 07:36:23 PM EST

it is entirely possible to seperate the symbol of the cross from the wisdom and teachings of Jesus

Except that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is an illustration of that wisdom and teaching in action. Surely, you're not going to argue that academic, ivory tower wisdom is as meaningful as applied wisdom, are you? It wasn't enough to tell people - he had to SHOW them.

and moreso, it better be, or we are all doomed

Why? Is there some kind of Christian cult whose goal is to crucify all its followers? You're really not making any sense here.

there is nothing wrong with emotional rapture and celebration

It really has nothing to do with emotional rapture or celebration - what it has to do with is how we should gather our courage and strength in the face of what the world and life and our fellow human beings do to us. As I indicated in my other post, we are vunerable and easily breakable - and some, like the Romans, take ruthless advantage of that to tyrannize people through fear. The crucifixion is an illustration of how that tyranny and how the inherent tragedy of life can be resisted without hatred or resorting to revenge. It's a parable that goes to the very heart of the human condition. Christianity would mean nothing more than the words of an obscure ancient seer without this central act. There's a reason why this symbol has had such emotional resonance for people throughout time - it can be related to anyone's life story.

but it must remain subservient to rational thought, or some devil who is just good at manipulating the symbols can come along and sink the bloody party

One can say that about any collection of symbols - and it would be more accurate to say that emotion and reason must be subservient to compassion and forgiveness. And what could be more compassionate than asking forgiveness for the people who were killing you?

As I said, the major theme of Christianity is the crucifixion. The fact that some have misused it for their own evil ends means nothing; people can use anything for evil ends.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
separation (none / 0) (#522)
by gdanjo on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 12:52:43 AM EST

it is entirely possible to seperate the symbol of the cross from the wisdom and teachings of Jesus
Is it possible to separate the teaching of Heisenberg from the uncertainty principle? Is it possible to separate the music of Beethoven from his temperment? Is it possible to separate "e=mc^2" from Einstein?

The answer to all of the above is YES! It is possible. But what you're suggesting is to permanently decouple two entangled entities. Yes we can separate these things, and we do to learn more about them (you thought reductionism was only for science?) but you can never permanently sever the link.

Why? Because they are linked!

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

Ever consider the phrase (none / 0) (#524)
by Skywise on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 01:13:27 AM EST

"The laws of God are written into man's hearts?"

And what that's trying to say about passion vs. rationality?

[ Parent ]

emotions (none / 0) (#521)
by gdanjo on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 12:40:22 AM EST

but i wish that you would see that the wisdom of jesus christ goes far beyond a simple emotional manipulation
The wisdom of Newton goes far beyond an apple falling on his head. The wisdom of Einstein goes far beyond "e=mc^2". Wisdom goes far beyond all communication of the wisdom - it is embedded in it's participation.

Newton's apple falling on his head is the symbolic beginnings of the adventures in the mind of a Great man. It is celebrated for being the "big bang" of Newtonian mechanics. Jesus' death is the symbolic beginning of an emotional awakening in all of humanity - it is the beginning of enlightenment; so powerful that it also nearly destroyed us (just as Einstein's theories allowed nuclear weapons to be created, which also nearly destroyed us).

Your assertion that the teaching of Jesus goes far beyond just his death and it's perceived "emotional manipulation" is true - but what's your point? Are you saying that teaching through emotion is an invalid method of teaching? If it is then you better explain that to all the parents out there in the world, because the first thing you learn is emotion.

what you posit as the highest rapture of his teachings is merely the entry point for learning something a lot more important about his wisdom
I posit no such thing. I agree it's the entry point. So what's your beef? Do you also go off at people that talk about Newton's apple falling on his head? If there was a movie about Newton that showed how this "eureka" moment occured, without going into exactly what he taught, would you call it the Newton Apple Pie Massacre?

you are a symbolic christian- invested emotionally and blindly, unthinkingly in the manipulation of the symbols of christianity, instead of the wisdom and teachings of the man
That you are able to come to such a vast conclusion based on one single post is an amazing feat, were it not for one minor glitch - that you're completely wrong.

Yes, I am invested emotionally and blindly in the teachings of Jesus - but do we have any other choice? How can we celebrate the teachings of Jesus without having emotional involvement? Or how do we learn about Jesus un-blindingly? Are you the light that will show the way? If not, we are all in blind belief - just as science has blind belief in it's axioms, art has blind belief in "greatness", philosophy has blind belief in nothing.

Unthinkingly? You judge to early.

i would therefore posit that i am more of a christian than sheep like you ever will be, because my mind is alive, i have not turned it off in servitude of a symbol, i have the teachings of the man alive and well and functional in my mind
Judgement on who is a better christian (I'm a catholic, BTW) is not for you or me. I can tell you I'm a horse, but it does not make it so. If I keep telling you I'm a horse, then you should question my motives for saying so.

You talk a lot about yourself - what you are and what you are not - and allow little judgement on these assertions by properly defending your position. Saying something does not make it so. Saying what you are says more about you that what you're saying about yourself.

My suggestion would be to not play these "my dick is bigger than yours" games and just defend your position. If you're right, you'll know it at the end of the argument - not by asserting it.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

I haven't seen it, but... (none / 1) (#313)
by onemorechip on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 10:37:03 PM EST

...isn't the Passion sort of the ultimate anti-death penalty movie?
--------------------------------------------------

I did my essay on mushrooms. It's about cats.

Not necessarily (none / 1) (#323)
by JayGarner on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 12:56:25 AM EST

See, had the death penalty been illegal, Christ could not have suffered and died for everyone's sins, and there would be no Xtianity, which according to most of your Passion viewers would not be good.

[ Parent ]
The way I feel about this movie (none / 2) (#321)
by MSBob on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 12:04:24 AM EST

The passion is a completely unnecessary movie as far as I'm concenred. It hits you in the face with its brutality the same way "Saving Private Ryan" did. But that too, was an unnecessary film. I didn't need to endure three hours of severed limbs, gushing blood and spilled intestines to realize that war was sick, immoral and demeaning. I also don't need hours of torture to realize that crucifiction and other methods of dishing out the death penalty in the ancient world were brutal and barbaric. I fail to see the purpose in either of the movies.

And for those of you who think that either of those flicks served some purpose: consider how milinos of Americans who saw "Private Ryan" still supported Bush'es war in Iraq.

I don't mind paying taxes, they buy me civilization.

Please tell me then... (none / 0) (#346)
by joto on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 08:51:41 AM EST

Exactly which movies do you consider purposeful? If the only reason for you to want a movie, is if it tells you something you couldn't have known otherwise, then I can't really say you look like the average movie-goer.

The primary reason for the existence of movies (at least historically) is as entertainment/recreation (today, maybe it is as advertizing). Now, I haven't seen this movie myself, but given the discussion about it so far, I'm pretty sure it will give you some entertainment.

[ Parent ]

Entertainment (none / 0) (#506)
by MSBob on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 10:46:18 PM EST

I watch movies to entertain myself. Neither "The Passion" nor "Private Ryan" can be considered entertainment in the generally accepted sense of the word. If they are not entertainment then they must have been created with some agenda in mind.

It turns out actually, that both of those films were made with an agenda in mind. One was created to remind us of the horrors of war while the other one was made to remind us of the horrors of crucifiction. Remind is a relative term here. Pound on the head with a sledgehammer seems more appropriate in those cases.

My earlier point was that those movies aren't entertainment but they also fail to achieve and longer lasting effect on the society as they are simply... well, movies. People tend to think about the issues raised for the day or two and they go back to their old merry ways. Thus intense, controversial movies like that fail to achieve their goal in my opinion. Oh, and "Funny games" is the same way too.

I don't mind paying taxes, they buy me civilization.

[ Parent ]
wrong (none / 1) (#365)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 12:04:28 PM EST

what sells rules and is worth talking about

a democracy of memes if you will

film snobbery means nothing except for a few elitist few

so go watch your art house crap and post on some obscure board and leave us alone with your intellectual elitist snobbery

i champion the populist view

the only view that matters is the view that has resonance with the most people, period

only when you work in the milieu can you effect change in this world

retreating from popular culture gets you nowhere except selfish satisfaction

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I agree with both points (none / 1) (#419)
by phred on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 02:16:01 PM EST

More specifically, The Passion isn't needed for Christians, in my opinion, as much as I like Mr. Gibson, he's of the "Vatican I" fold, and I'm not even partial to Catholicism (sp).

Even more, hollywood stuff isn't really all that needed either.

But I agree even more with CTC, the popular culture and what it contains is very influential to the mainstream, and this is even more crucial given that many important directions of society are keyed on popular opinion, especially with democracies. Surely worth discussing this movie and its effects.

[ Parent ]

thank you ;-) (nt) (none / 0) (#423)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 02:30:57 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
You really miss the point (none / 1) (#441)
by CENGEL3 on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 03:30:28 PM EST

I think you are REALLY off-base. First, I'm really not sure what you mean by "neccesary". ALL films are "unneccesary".... they are not food, water or air. I'm not going to comment on The Passion because I haven't seen it.... but you are really missing the boat with Ryan.

Very few people, have even an intellectual level of appreciation or understanding for what the war in europe was like for the generation of men who fought it. Even those who have an intellectual understanding really can't appreciate it on a visceral level, Ryan gave just a little glimpse of that..it made it hit home.

I'm getting sick of the attempts to turn every article on K5 into a Bush/Iraq bash. You clearly miss the message of Ryan there too. The message of Ryan was not "War is horrible, avoid it at all costs!"  It was "A generation of ordinary Americans made extraordinary sacrifices and endured extraordinary hardships in order to secure the freedom and secruity that we (and much of the world) enjoy today. We should appreciate them and what they secured for us and use it well." Along with that it carries the message that "somtimes wars must be fought (and hardships endured) in order secure the blessings of freedom." That idealogy is very much in line with the position that those who support the President and the War in Iraq take.

You might disagree with the perception that is what Iraq is actualy about.... and I'm not going to rehash that debate for the millionth time.... but that IS the perception and idealogy of most of the people who support our current policy in Iraq.


[ Parent ]

Short answer (1.41 / 12) (#322)
by michaelmalak on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 12:05:17 AM EST

What is the root of this strange dichotomy among the overly religious: sex very bad, violence no problem.
Because seeing violence does not automatically make one violent, but seeing sex or -- especially -- immodesty incites the imagination and makes one lust for sex outside marriage.

P.S.: The Janet Jackson incident was overblown in the context of the many other ways immodesty is forced upon us.

--
BergamoAcademy.com  Authentic Montessori in Denver

well said but... (none / 1) (#364)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 12:00:34 PM EST

When it comes to frank depictions of sexuality or violence in video games or in the movies, I am of the opinion that only good can come of it.

That is, we can view human beings one of two ways: blank slates who mimic what their culture and society tells them is acceptable, or as seething cauldrons of primordial violence and sex that must be tamed and channeled by society and culture into appropriate modes of behavior.

To me, the second depiction of human beings is more accurate. I believe we have within us an innate ability for much evil behavior, and therefore violence in the media serves as an outlet for this psychic waste that might otherwise find expression in real life. Therefore, I am of the opinion that
sexuality and violence in the media can only serve the purpose of good: an opiate, a harmless release in fantasy rather than a harmful release in reality.

I think you have the opposing view of human nature, the blank slate one, and I think it's just flat out wrong.

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

There is a third view... (none / 1) (#403)
by mberteig on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 01:23:30 PM EST

which is that humans are fundamenatally noble, but a lack of spiritual education, or a perverted spiritual education, makes us turn aside from this nobility.

I often think of it like entropy: it takes directed energy to move a system from a chaotic state to an ordered state, and if the energy isn't constantly applied, the system regresses to it's chaotic state.

In like manner, I believe that we are born pure, and that the lack of good spiritual education means that we slide down into chaos. But it is not our inherent state any more than chaos is the inherent state of any system.

Another analogy is with plants: proper tending produces a healthy plant, while improper tending or a lack of tending can harm or kill a plant. The plant still has it's "plant-ness", but if neglected, it loses that plant-ness and becomes chaos instead.




Agile Advice - How and Why to Work Agile
[ Parent ]
that's not a third view (none / 1) (#410)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 01:35:15 PM EST

that's just a rephrasing of the "blank slate" view

i am of the view we are seething cauldrons of sex and violence, and education and indoctirnation into civilization tempers and rechannels the expressionn of sex and violence into acceptable ways

think "lord of the flies"

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I disagree that it's rephrasing of -blank slate- (none / 0) (#415)
by mberteig on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 02:00:41 PM EST

I'm curious how you see it as simply a rephrasing.

To me it is fairly obvious that the black slate view is already destroyed as an absolute position simply by the understanding we have about genetics. It is true that unexpressed genes are still only potential in us until we live long enough for them to be expressed, but that doesn't mean we are a blank slate. Far from it, our physical reality has quite an effect on the course of our lives. Mind you, I'm also not a nature extremist since it is also blatently obvious that our environment plays a great role in our development. The missing third piece from the nature vs. nuture argument is free-will.

I don't have a strong opinion about it, except that I believe (currently without strong proof) that free will is a real attribute of humans and that we exercise free will constantly.

With free will thrown in, we have a great responsibility to self-educate.




Agile Advice - How and Why to Work Agile
[ Parent ]
this is the first time you mentioned free will (none / 0) (#420)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 02:21:34 PM EST

and i agree with you about that

so if free will is your "third way", we have no disagreement

but i would say this about nature and nurture:

nature makes us feral children

nurture makes us civilized fops

nature and nurture together makes us human beings: the sex and violence still there, but under a social and cultural template of when and where expression of our true nature is appropriate/ inappropriate

i don't know what this innate "nobility" is that you speak of

nobility to me might be refraining from expressing sex or violence even under the most tempting of situations because you know it is still wrong, because of what nurture has taught you


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Nurture (none / 1) (#515)
by mberteig on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 11:49:09 PM EST

The real problem with nuture, as I mentioned in my other comments, is that our nuture is done primarily by humans with loads of imperfections. When those humans are corrupted clergy, the nurture is down right negative and leads to fanaticism and fundamentalism, or complete moral relativism.

As a bit of an aside, I think that the best nurture is often hardship. If our capacity for learning hasn't been destroyed, then hardship is one of the best ways to learn spiritual discipline. (Although I don't think that self-imposed hardship has nearly as much value.)

The innate nobility is our spiritual capacity. In Christian terms, "created in the image of God". That's innate and in an sense our birthright. I do believe in a rather dual human nature: the physical and the spiritual, and I think that the greatest evils are perpetuated when the physical parts of our nature take control. Humans are "designed" so that their best comes out when the physical and spiritual are well-balanced.




Agile Advice - How and Why to Work Agile
[ Parent ]
well said (nt) (none / 0) (#535)
by circletimessquare on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 05:52:59 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
biology (none / 0) (#498)
by davros4269 on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 08:32:21 PM EST

How about this view - we are biological beings, and lust via instinct, and, society determines what we should or what we should not do with that lust and how good or bad said lust is.

Is there evidence for a "spirutual" component to our makeup?
Will you squirm when you are pecked? Quack.
[ Parent ]

Evidence for spiritual component (none / 0) (#514)
by mberteig on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 11:40:10 PM EST

Depends on what you call evidence.

To me, there is far more than enough evidence to convince me that there is a spiritual component to human life, but that evidence is primarily personal.




Agile Advice - How and Why to Work Agile
[ Parent ]
I understand (none / 1) (#532)
by davros4269 on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 03:54:06 AM EST

Definitions fail us - the def of "evidence" is wide-open, to say the least ;)

Myself, I don't consider that type of personal evidence as the kind of good evidence that leads to better understanding.

For example, I could counter that my personal evidence says that there is no spirutual component - where are we then? Nowhere, in a general sense, unless there are 6 billion universes, one for each person (how many more, if we allow for semi-sentient animals, aliens, smart machines in the future, etc).

While I understand that the world is just what we percieve, I also understand that you and I both could understand the existence of the same rock.

The common-denominator-type-deal (like rocks) is what I consider "good evidence".

I didn't spell check this.
Will you squirm when you are pecked? Quack.
[ Parent ]

common denominator (none / 0) (#541)
by mberteig on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 10:31:53 AM EST

Common denominator evidence for spirituality does exist, its just that its personal and conditional. What I mean is that every person has to discover it for themselves and that discovery is conditional on pure intent and following instructions. The main difference with the scientific method is that we can't get machines to measure spiritual events (yet?). That is why it is personal - an individual has to experience it directly.

The instruction to follow come from the Manifestations of God. These instructions are hard to follow and if you don't want to follow them then they won't work for you. For example, if you are in a loving relationship with someone who is very spiritual, you won't necessarily get spiritual by doing what your partner does for his or her sake. You have to do it for the sake of becoming spiritual. Not only that, but you have to follow real instructions. Following the instructions of clergy or gurus is no guarantee of spiritual development - only by recognizing a Manifestation of God and following His instructions will things work.

Many people give up on religion because they are following the instructions of clergy (or peers) instead of the true instructions.




Agile Advice - How and Why to Work Agile
[ Parent ]
well... (none / 0) (#558)
by davros4269 on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 04:38:15 PM EST

These are your opinions.

Stick to this premise. I will assume that you aren't lying about your "internal" evidence for God. You will assume that I am not lying about my "internal" evidence for no God.

They conflict, hence paradox, hence, 6 billion universes, or, we need "good"/outside/corroborating evidence for God, or spirituality, or what have you.

Or, try this hypothetical experiment of sorts: I have internal evidence for Allah, you for Vishnu. Those religions have external "evidence", lets say, in the form of oral traditions, holy books, etc., however, those conflict with each other. Again, paradox - same problem.

There doesn't exist what I would call "good evidence". If you feel more comfortable, insert the word "yet" where you want, however, my statement stands, I think.
Will you squirm when you are pecked? Quack.
[ Parent ]

Proved vs. Known (none / 0) (#543)
by jameth on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 11:40:47 AM EST

There is significant danger in relying only on such hard evidence. You risk only knowing what is proven. There is not enough time to prove everything, and even if there were, there would not be enough time for one man to learn it. Thus, we simply know things even which we cannot prove.

As an example, I know I will be hungry in another two hours. There's no real proving I've ever done, I'm just feeling like I'll be hungry in a couple of hours. Entirely personal evidence, but do you think you can refute me?

That's a vague example, but the idea is that a lot of things rely on personal evidence and are still entirely reliable. What you take issue with is that you think you CANNOT prove a spirit exists. I would disagree, saying that you cannot prove that a spirit exists YET.

That does not make it unproveable.

[ Parent ]

I don't like "prove" (none / 0) (#557)
by davros4269 on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 04:29:53 PM EST

I don't like that word, I'm not sure science can really "prove" much, just show such a preponderance of evidence that it may as well be considered, for the time being, fact.

I know you said your analogy wasn't a good one, but I'll use it anyway. If your body showed signs of being hungry, I'd reason that it could be detected.

If you are lying, or, just think you are hungry when you actually aren't, I'd reason that that may be detectable at some point - this brings us to another interesting point: if you can lie about being hungry, you can lie about having a spiritual sense. I simply can't accept that kind of thing as "good evidence".

Besides, we aren't even talking about the notions of external, corroborating evidence - as in the rock example. Anyone can examine the evidence and reach the same conclusion.

Other similar things, lets say, like love, I would reason the same way. There are already indicators that we could examine, chemicals, etc. If course, the person could be lying. Surely you would agree that we will get better, even if never perfect, at detecting these states of mind.
Will you squirm when you are pecked? Quack.
[ Parent ]

I was Unclear (none / 1) (#620)
by jameth on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 09:21:49 AM EST

I was not referring to my ability to prove to you, but to my ability to know for myself. The difference is that, no matter how often I say, 'I'll be hungry in a bit,' you cannot really know I am right, but I can. Internal knowledge does not always need proof, and there can be solid knowledge of things which are unproveable. One of the greatest difficulties is in the transference of this knowledge.

And, I think the love example is a great one. You talk about people getting better at detecting these states of mind. The fact is, computers may get better, but some people have been excellent at this for a long time. I know girls who can look at someone they don't know, look around the room, and pick out who they're going out with or about to ask out. The KNOW the person is/is not in love. They cannot prove it. They do not even know how they know it, but they know it none-the-less.

The lack of evidence does not invalidate the knowledge.

[ Parent ]

it sort of does (none / 0) (#670)
by davros4269 on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 11:31:29 AM EST

I know what you mean, but try this.

First, the thing about the girl 'knowing' - well, since our minds are physically more or less the same, it doesn't surprise me that some people become masters of reading other humans - other animals are much better at this social-stuff than we are - I don't really see how that fits.

As for your internal knowledge, hunger and love are common to other people - almost all people, for example. If you told me you were hungry or in love, I'd likely believe you anyway.

If you told me you had a spiritual sense of something, I would not believe you.

Now, if your spiritual sense involves only you, like your own hunger or desire to use the bathroom, lets say, that's one thing.

However, once you try and "leave" and suggest that a spiritual sense extends beyond yourself, you run into serious problems. For example, while I love and get hungry, I have no spiritual sense. Since your spiritual sense is internal, you have no way to deduce or show that I am wrong in not having one - I could just as easily suggest that you are wrong in having one.

Not to mention that once "outside", we run into a lack of good evidence all around.

Actually, I'd further suggest, that given what we know about the world thus far and given the unreliability of our minds, I'd say that the probability of the spiritual sense inside your own head are highly unlikely.
Will you squirm when you are pecked? Quack.
[ Parent ]

Extreme Violence? (2.25 / 4) (#327)
by lucifer666 on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 01:12:19 AM EST

then all I can conclude is that spiritual beauty is somehow directly rooted in extreme violence
And you haven't previously percieved this by looking at the world around you?

Maybe April 15 reminds people of this movie (none / 1) (#329)
by muldrake on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 01:41:18 AM EST

I just posted a rant today about the anti-Semitism in the Jesus Chainsaw Massacre on my blog, and also about how Mel Gibson isn't even a legitimate Roman Catholic. More to the point, I go into where exactly he deviates from orthodoxy. Not that I'm a Catholic any more myself, but I'm irritated at Gibson's cheesy attempts to get a Vatican endorsement for his vicious piece of heresy. Details of the Opus Dei connection are in this piece by Gary Wills in the New York Review of Books.

Jesus vs Jackson (2.70 / 10) (#330)
by siener on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 02:47:17 AM EST

If you believe the New Testament, a lot of it is about bringing people together, about putting aside our differences.  

No longer are there only the Jews God's people, now we are all in the same boat. Whether you're a priest or a whore, you have an equal claim on the kingdom of heaven.

I you believe that that was Jesus's message, then this movie is 100% counter productive. It does not bring people together, but drives them apart. It gives Christians more reason to hate and distrust non-Christians and vice versa.

As for Janet's boob: Rarely has a single event so clearly emphasized the difference between USA and the rest of the developed world. In most European countries you can see breasts and even dicks on public tv every day. In many places this has been the case for decades.

It is because of this moral decay that Europe is a nest of rape and violence and USA is so idyllic and peaceful. Oh, wait ...


The "Cash-In of the Christ" (none / 3) (#331)
by stpna5 on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 03:02:31 AM EST

as I call it -- or "King of the Queues" is rated R. I don't think any Jenna Jameson films are. As Jack Nicholson said in 1972, "The morality of the ratings system is: if you suck on a tit your an X. If you hack it off with a sword you're an R." Gibson's shrugging "what, me intolerant?" defensiveness hasn't damaged the box office for his Lenten S&M scourge-fest abroad [except in Israel--no distributor]. It is a hit in Arab countries, of course and should also do well in Central America if their amazingly gory holy cards are any indication.

"Overly religious" (none / 0) (#334)
by seebs on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 04:03:16 AM EST

The problem is not that they're overly religious; it's that they're overly puritanical.  I have met many people whom I could not easily imagine being any more religious, but who are not "overly" religious.

overly religious (none / 1) (#362)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 11:55:18 AM EST

is just as dangerous as puritanical

puritans are really just fascists

overly religious are sheep- they have willfully turned a blind eye to reason, have stopped thinking, and have imparted all of their faith and obedience in the manipulation of tribal symbols and ceremony

therefore, anyone who manipulates the symbols and ceremony they invested their obedience in, they will follow, blindly, unthinkingly

this is pretty dangerous

we need thinking christians, reasoning christians, who see the teachings and wisdom of jesus, not the emotional ceremonial tribal symbols


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

The Village Gathering (none / 0) (#595)
by Handyman on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 08:20:54 PM EST

we need thinking christians, reasoning christians, who see the teachings and wisdom of jesus, not the emotional ceremonial tribal symbols

You might like The Village Gate; it's a communal blog billed as being "where religious progressives gather."

I find that they post interesting links, accompanied by insightful commentary, on a regular basis. Most notably, they are quite clueful; they distance themselves from the "narrow-minded, bigoted, uncaring" Christianity practiced by Falwell & Robertson, Co. Although I do not share their beliefs, I respect them and highly recommend their site.

--
Never be afraid to be the first one on the dance floor.
[ Parent ]
What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#607)
by seebs on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 11:53:48 PM EST

You even grant that there are thinking Christians; what makes you think they're less religious than other Christians?  Religion doesn't mean "total lack of thought or consideration".

[ Parent ]
It's really quite simple. (none / 3) (#336)
by J T MacLeod on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 04:13:33 AM EST

As human beings, we have instincts.  

We instinctually recognize violence as something wrong.  Thus, when exposed to depictions of violence, it can excite, but the instinctual sense of violence is left intact.  

We instinctually recognize sex as something good.  Thus, when exposed to it in improper contexts, it excites and can easily distort the perception and stance of the viewer, especially a young viewer.  Also see:  Eating habits.  

Sure, the culture of "hiding" sexuality and pretending it doesn't exist is phenomenonally stupid.  So is a culture where sexuality is public.  How about a culture where sexuality is private and sacred, but we're very frank about it?  No, that just might make TOO MUCH SENSE for the world to accept.  

That aside, intention of The Passion of the Christ was not to titillate.  Had it been, it would have been considered dispicable.  The very point of the film was to convey an actual event from history and make its importance personally accessable in a way not known to many before.  His sacrifice was the most important event in the history of mankind, but out of all the things retold in the gospels, it is the hardest for a modern reader to relate to.  That is the point of it.  Obviously, it already has significance to those who have lived in a culture where Christianity is common.  I don't know of anyone who actually enjoyed seeing it, but it certainly touched many, which was the point.  

Then why (none / 0) (#340)
by triptolemeus on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 06:03:23 AM EST

Are heroes men who kill other men? Why don't we call all the loving husbands heroes?

[ Parent ]
For two reasons (none / 1) (#348)
by J T MacLeod on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 09:12:55 AM EST

First, is that they are seen as defenders.  People who provide protection and safety are seen as admirable, even if that protection and safety is only an illusion.  

Second is the fact that, well, people are just screwed up.  

[ Parent ]

Because (none / 1) (#454)
by CENGEL3 on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 03:58:09 PM EST

Heroes are people who do "Heroic" things. Heroic usualy implies things that are very difficult to achieve and often entail danger, hardship and sacrifice.

If I could cure cancer simply by eating a slice of pizza would I be more of a "hero" then a firefighter who raced into a burning building to save a single child?

I certainly would have done immeasurably more good for the world then the firefighter... but I don't think I would really qualify as a "hero", whereas the firefighter would.

[ Parent ]

consider (none / 1) (#491)
by limivore on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 07:01:20 PM EST

Consider who's naming heros. Monkeys love supermonkeys (super fuck and kill!!)- call peaceful pseudomonkeys "damn hippies".

[ Parent ]
this is actually the best rebuff to my points here (none / 1) (#360)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 11:51:38 AM EST

the instinctual violence versus sex reaction point

not the tired "jesus died for your sins" point

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Doesn't that frighten you? (none / 2) (#432)
by coward anonymous on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 03:01:52 PM EST

That an entire religious belief is based on some notion that horrific torture and subsequent killing of an individual is a solution for something?

[ Parent ]
exactly (none / 0) (#457)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 04:20:30 PM EST

why can't i be motivated by the great man's message?

why do i have to be motivated by his bloody evisceration?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

If he had a great message... (none / 0) (#464)
by handslikesnakes on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 04:59:24 PM EST

...why can't you figure it out for yourself?

I don't think anybody needs Jesus to tell them not to be a dick. The principle of dicklessness can be determined from basic starting points.



[ Parent ]
wrong (none / 0) (#468)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 05:34:01 PM EST

it's important to elevate people like jesus, martin luther king, gandhi, etc. into the spotlight

believe it or not, there are plenty of people out there who think being a dick is just fine

anything, including icons, that says society thinks otherwise, helps

of course you can figure out by yourself the principle of dicklessness (?)

given enough time, i could have probably invented the wheel on my own too

but it helped that someone came along before me and figured it out first

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Sure, but... (none / 1) (#485)
by handslikesnakes on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 06:31:48 PM EST

...why afford the inventor of the wheel any special honour?

I doubt that Jesus was the first person to come up with the theory of not being an asshole, and I doubt that the fact that he came up with it is going to stop assholes from being assholes.

(mentioning the "principle of dicklessness" was just for hilariousness value)



[ Parent ]
if you can tell me (none / 0) (#489)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 06:59:17 PM EST

that you don't admire anyone in this world, well then ok

you don't think what einstein did was cool? oh well, someone else would have figured out the energy mass thing, so no big deal

what you are saying goes agains the very basic psychological principle of reward for good work... whether pecking at bits of dust of ground until your belly is full if you are a pigeon, to taking a shower in the morning so women will take a second glance at you

if someone does something cool, we tend to reward him for his efforts

that's immoveable human psychology


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I recognize Einstein. (none / 0) (#494)
by handslikesnakes on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 07:17:14 PM EST

Good for him, E=mc^2 is a significant discovery.

But I don't claim that he's the son of God, or that his wacky ideas about God are true because he had some good ideas about not being a jerk.

Not even to mention that plenty of people develop their concepts of morality without even considering Jesus. Relativity isn't immediately obvious, but there are plenty of people who develop very similar ideas about morality completely without (or even despite Jesus' teachings as they have been taught.



[ Parent ]
just a nit pick (none / 1) (#497)
by little jackal on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 08:19:19 PM EST

I don't think the great achievement of Einstein is the equation for relating rest mass with energy. His big contribution was the Theory of Relativity (both General and Special) along with other work in Physics (EPR expeirment, etc.). But the point here is that if he hadn't come along, someone else would have. Maybe a few years later, but still someone would have considered the state of things, realized there must be a better explanation.
Same goes for ideas on morality. Jesus came along with his version of the moral code. But what's important here is that there have been many people like him that came along at different times in different societies.
I consider these people (Moses, Jesus, Dalai Lama, Gandhi) to be populist philosophers. These guys aren't complete abstract thinkers like Socrates. They try and relate ideas to the times. And by doing so try and improve the lives of their people (at the given time period). But when people try and stick to these ideas for centuries, and apply them with blind obedience, then we have problems. And frankly, I don't think Jesus, Moses, or Mohammed are the answer to today's problems. We need to either take from their lessons and adapt them. Or look for a modern Messiah.

the shared gravitational mass would create a supercluster of obese bodies with all the remaining fit bodies orbiting around it. -skewedtree
[ Parent ]
well said (none / 0) (#501)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 09:20:56 PM EST

but we don't need more messiahs (even though there are always applicants for the job position), we just need clarification of what siddhartha, jesus, etc. were saying

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
How can you say that? (none / 0) (#502)
by handslikesnakes on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 09:49:11 PM EST

Do you honestly believe that these people had definitive answers to modern problems, and that there is no way for their philosophies to be improved upon?



[ Parent ]
the more things change, the more they stay the sam (none / 0) (#509)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 11:22:35 PM EST

technology changes morality, for sure

but in the vast majority of ways, we're still the same dumb brutes who just crawled out of a cave

the principles of tolerance, criminality, justice, morality, happiness, love, freedom... these things never change

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Nit pick noted. (none / 0) (#508)
by handslikesnakes on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 11:18:41 PM EST

Yeah, now that I think about it E=mc2 was a pretty obvious reference to make. What can I say, I'm no physicist. (I guess it shows...)

I think "populist philosopher" is a pretty good description of religious leaders. It's just too bad that their philosophies became (or were originally) inflexible and full of random craziness.



[ Parent ]
Socrates (none / 1) (#559)
by The Solitaire on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 06:38:55 PM EST

On the contrary, Socrates was hardly simply an "abstract thinker" as you put it. Actually, he was primarily concerned with how people should actually live, and he actually lived his philosophy. Now, granted, Socrates did think that the quiet contemplative life was the best, he really believed that that was true for (at least partially) pragmatic reasons.

I need a new sig.
[ Parent ]

agreed (none / 0) (#500)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 09:15:12 PM EST

but there's plenty who do develop similar ideas independently, but htere's also plenty who do not, and for all of them, jesus christ is a good example, so there's no need to mess with the example, capice?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, but... (none / 0) (#507)
by handslikesnakes on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 11:14:28 PM EST

...as we all know, even people who use Jesus as an example don't seem to get those ideas.

Personally, I think we'd all be better off if we found an example that didn't carry all sorts of crazy religious baggage with it.



[ Parent ]
but it's a place to start (none / 0) (#510)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 11:23:49 PM EST

the bogus losers who misunderstand jesus and miscommunicate him can be better corrected and communicated with in the lagnuage of the messiah they profess to represent, but do not

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Where I live (none / 2) (#341)
by triptolemeus on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 06:05:54 AM EST

You have to be 18 to look at people making other people.

But you only have to be 12 to see people kill other people. You could also watch the news when you're younger...

heaven (none / 3) (#344)
by Cackmobile on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 07:48:19 AM EST

all i know is i don't wanna go. IT'll be full of christians. I wanna kick it in hell with the big S watching porn and taking drugs. *FLAMEBAIT ALERT* sorry couldn't resist

Mark Twain... (none / 1) (#425)
by efflux on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 02:43:05 PM EST

had a similiar sentiment expressed in Letters from the Earth

[ Parent ]
Jesus' death is central to Christianity (3.00 / 5) (#345)
by wastl on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 08:15:58 AM EST

An analogy to the "The Passion of the Christ" might be to make a movie called "The Passion of Gandhi." That movie, of course, would not be about Gandhi's political rise and peaceful battles with colonial Britain, but instead the movie would start with Gandhi being shot, and the rest would simply show, slowly and with sadistic "passion," the bloody suffering of watching Gandhi pass away.

While I agree with most of what you say, I find your analogy unfitting. Whereas you are right that Ghandi's achievements were during his lifetime, one of the central points in the Christian belief is actually the death and suffering of Jesus, in which he suffered for all people and took all sins with him. His death also made him a martyr, which probably also was a very important point for spreading the religion.

Even more important is his resurrection after death (but that's not possible without death, is it?). Although commercialism might imply otherwise, it is still Easter and not Christmas which is Christianities most important holiday.

Sebastian

P.S.: Forgive me if I didn't use the right words, English is not my native tongue and I do not happen to write often about religious matters in English.

i wish christians (none / 1) (#359)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 11:45:05 AM EST

could find import in the teachings and wisdom of jesus' life, and not the tribal symbol manipulation you speak of

then the world would be a much better place

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

It's the clergy that has done this. (none / 1) (#378)
by mberteig on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 12:30:23 PM EST

<p>Not the rank and file.  The rank and file have simply swallowed centuries of corruption of the teachings of Christ that have been supplied by the clergy to hold onto power.  Same with Islam, Judaism, etc.</p>



Agile Advice - How and Why to Work Agile
[ Parent ]
well you're just passing the buck (none / 1) (#411)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 01:36:24 PM EST

when are people accountable for their own personal actions?

if you are going to correct a problem we both apparently agree on, what are we to do? change the clergy? i say go straight to the sheep

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Indeed! (none / 2) (#413)
by mberteig on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 01:54:25 PM EST

I certainly wasn't trying to pass the buck since I strongly believe that there are two components to spirituality: the personal, which is your own business and for which you alone are ultimately accountable (or another way of saying this is that you bear the brunt of the consequences/rewards of your personal efforts to develop spiritually), and the communal which is everyone's business and is sadly ignored by most people.

The clergy historically have been largely responsible for communal spirituality. Their failings as individuals have led them to corrupt communities to such a degree that it also retards individuals' ability to persue personal spirituality.

I agree that we go straight "to the sheep" as you say. Which is what Jesus did in his time, and likewise with Mohammed, Moses, the Buddha, etc. They all, in various ways, condemned the clergy and focussed on enlightening the common people. It's a very common theme in the development of world religions.




Agile Advice - How and Why to Work Agile
[ Parent ]
amen (none / 1) (#417)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 02:09:16 PM EST

you speak for me, and probably speak better than me about my own feelings about the issue, with those words

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
High praise! Thanks! [n/t] (none / 1) (#516)
by mberteig on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 11:50:20 PM EST




Agile Advice - How and Why to Work Agile
[ Parent ]
I wish you'd learn enough theology to know (none / 2) (#426)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 02:43:16 PM EST

why your comment makes no sense. Jesus himself specified that his death and resurrection were requirements - not after thoughts - to his ministry.

Christians without the Easter thing would be extremely reformed Jews.

Will we line up for Grand Theft Auto 5 if it's the exact same thing, only with prettier texture-mapped bruises on the whores? -- David Wong
[ Parent ]

well then theology sucks (none / 3) (#434)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 03:06:35 PM EST

passion without thought is blind

and thought without passion is corrupt

we need thought AND passion, and less people like you, making excuses for the blind sheep to be left alone

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Ah yes. The world would be a much better place (none / 3) (#562)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 10:02:04 PM EST

if parents didn't love their children unconditionally.

Again, Jesus' theology was nothing new - he himself said he came to complete the old prophecies, not to replace them. Without his spectacular illustration of pacifism he would have been just another rabbi.

Will we line up for Grand Theft Auto 5 if it's the exact same thing, only with prettier texture-mapped bruises on the whores? -- David Wong
[ Parent ]

I agree ... (none / 1) (#538)
by wastl on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 08:18:23 AM EST

... but you must accept that still, the (unnatural) death of Jesus is one of the most important points for Christianity.

I didn't say this was good, or that what the Church wants us to believe is good.

BTW: Recent historic studies have shown that Jesus, while he indeed existed, only was a prophet for at most three years and most of the things he allegedly said are actually attributed to him later by the Clergy (one of the things he is assumed to have said himself are the "allegories"). So actually, it is even difficult to refer to "Jesus' life". Most importantly, he most probably never in his lifetime claimed that he was the son of God.

What I wanted to say with this is that religion is just that: religion. And it is necessary to have respect for the belief of other people. If Jesus' death is a central point for Christianity, one has to simply accept this, whether it happend or not.

Sebastian

[ Parent ]

evidence please (none / 0) (#668)
by pmgolz on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 10:19:04 AM EST


------
Enthios
[ Parent ]
idealism (none / 2) (#351)
by wobblie on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 10:10:28 AM EST

Well, the crux of this anti-sex pro-violence thing has more to do with idealism in general rather than christianity in particular (I refer to definition of idealism in the academic sense). Idealists at root have nothing but contempt for what most people regard as reality - the physical world. To an idealist, the tangible world is not the "real" world. Christians (and almost all other religions) are necessarily idealists. This is why they hate sex, their bodies and nearly everything else that exists in the "physical" world. An honest reading of Nietsche's "Antichrist" and Bakunin's "God and the State" will make it very obvious as to why this horrible movie is so popular among christians.

ph33r teh b00bie!! (2.28 / 7) (#354)
by V on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 10:35:45 AM EST

Welcome to USia. Please make yourself at home.

V.
---
What my fans are saying:
"That, and the fact that V is a total, utter scumbag." VZAMaZ.
"well look up little troll" cts.
"I think you're a worthless little cuntmonkey but you made me lol, so I sigged you." re
"goodness gracious you're an idiot" mariahkillschickens

war without death (none / 1) (#499)
by limivore on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 08:37:13 PM EST

Wouldn't "war without death" best describe economic warfare?

Economic warfare = A fight, not to destroy, but to control and exploit.

Does this not describe our present (world) society? Is this not a deathless war waged by farmers upon cattle?

Death is just a waste of a good slave.

[ Parent ]

Let's all come together children (2.25 / 4) (#374)
by LilDebbie on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 12:23:52 PM EST

to embrace sex AND violence!

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

tip: IMDB and ratings (3.00 / 9) (#408)
by davros4269 on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 01:31:15 PM EST

When I decide if my kids should watch a movie, I use IMDB to check on the ratings...however, I compare the ratings the flick gets with what it gets in other countries.

For a good laugh at how silly ratings work in this country, try this sometime. Sometimes, a movie that gets an R rating here, gets a 7 (as in seven years old) in Sweden of Switzerland! It's almost always related to sex...

Of course, I don't blindly go by the ratings of other countries, but that's an excellent piece of the puzzle for me.

As for the Jesus flick - go with the UK - no non-adults allowed. If show girls deserved NC-17 for oral sex, this flick deserves X.

Lets not forget that there seems to be SOME evidence of the link between violence in media and in people. Is there such a link between, what, excessive masterbation and sex on tv? ;)


Will you squirm when you are pecked? Quack.

Marcionism (2.66 / 3) (#436)
by nymia_g on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 03:10:00 PM EST

This comment is pretty valid, violence is violence, which should not be part of Christianity. Marcion tried it, almost made it, but it ended in the Manichean's hand. You can't separate suffering from salvation by removing violence.

christians=professional propogandists=rapists (2.77 / 9) (#442)
by limivore on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 03:32:33 PM EST

   If you want your victim to swallow the bait you gotta get him to reflexively open his mouth- a gape of shock at a vista of ultraviolence will do just fine.

   At our university here the christians swoop down on the international students- chinese, japanese, etc- too unskilled in english to argue and too polite to say fuck off- too uneducated in dealing with professional liars to see through the thin bullshit of "Come to our friendship get-together. Bring your friends. Free pizza!".

   Our local christians even offered free tickets to see "The Passion". Free ride too. Oh ya, international students only!

You ever go to one of those "charismatic" meetings? They clusterfuck every 6-year-old that walks in.

Jesus would puke his guts out.

You want to identify a TRUE CHRISTIAN? Here's a hint: he ain't spending his precious time pulling a 9-to-5 and he's given all of his stuff away. Know anybody like that? What part of "nonmaterialistic" don't you understand?

Woah. I was all pissed off. (none / 3) (#449)
by limivore on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 03:50:07 PM EST

Actually, I know some very nice christians. It just goes to show that any monkey can wave a flag and waving a flag doesn't make you into a monkey.

More clearly headed: Christianity is a name given to a RELIGION and a CULTURE.

The RELIGION has the pros and cons that all religions have: It's visible aspects are books and words and we all know the pros and cons of those. It's a guide that can lead to greater things if care and sensitivity are employed but if you have care and sensitivity christianity is probably beside the point- not to mention that care and sensitivity are probably the weak suit of anybody who feels the urge to latch onto a religion.

   The CULTURE is like may cultures. Think yogurt or fuzzy bread. You've got this hunk of propoganda that includes instructions compelling those infected by the propoganda to infect as many other people with the propoganda as possible. Children and the naive are targetted for obvious reasons. It's a reciepe for big fun indeed!
   These "contagious propoganda chunks" are created by lovers of ideas. Boneheaded literalists=accurate transcriptors. No offense, but think "geek". Yes, christian geeks, living in their brightly-lit christianity-colored phonebooths.

   So it's the natural predilictions of humans that is to blame. Tigers eat sweet little babies and wasps plant flesh-eating larvae in spider's bellies. It's as natural as the rain.

   Just because somebody has 2-arms and 2-legs doesn't mean that they're human like you.

[ Parent ]

rage on friend (nt) (none / 0) (#456)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 04:01:27 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Just in name of accuracy, (none / 1) (#539)
by hummassa on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 08:22:38 AM EST

Christianity is the name of a group of religions, that include Catholics, Orthodox Catholics, all Protestants, Messianic Jews, etc.
And we Christians can't agree with ourselves in nothing, hence the frisson about this movie.
We have three big religious groups in the world today:
  1. Judaic, or Western. This includes all the Christians and the Muslims.
  2. Eastern. This includes, among others, Hinduists, Taoists, Buddhists.
  3. Neo-pagans. This includes Wiccans and other similar religions.
That's it. Even between groups 2 and 3 there is not a very wide difference in ethics, and few variations in practices of religions. People are nuts for fighting about this stuff.
Now, people inside the group 1 are the craziest of all. They fight with other people that believe in the same God, for the details.

[ Parent ]
Just in the name of accuracy (none / 0) (#583)
by esrever on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 05:25:33 PM EST

Christians and Muslims don't believe in the same god.

Or, to be more precise, if they do believe in the same god, then their beliefs about said god embrace such contrary and utterly opposing points of view that one group or the other must be utterly, entirely wrong about the nature of said god, and thus must effectively be worshipping a different god.

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

Find the pea in these three cups... (none / 0) (#594)
by Handyman on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 08:02:09 PM EST

I was under the impression that Christians, Muslims, and Jews all believe in "The God of Abraham"?

Or am I completely mistaken?

(Hint: I am not completely mistaken.)

--
Never be afraid to be the first one on the dance floor.
[ Parent ]
Read for comprehension this time (none / 0) (#596)
by esrever on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 08:30:00 PM EST

"""
...to be more precise, if they do believe in the same god, then their beliefs about said god embrace such contrary and utterly opposing points of view that one group or the other must be utterly, entirely wrong about the nature of said god, and thus must effectively be worshipping a different god.
"""

In point of fact, the 'prophet' Mohammed/Muhammad prophessed to be speaking about the god of 'the people of the book' (Jews) but had several obviously mistaken views about such.  For example, he didn't seem to understand that the Jews weren't necessarily Christian, and vice-versa.  Additionally, there are one or two suras that indicate he believed that the 'people of the book' believed that mother Mary was part of the Holy Trinity (the 'mother of God').

The god that Muslims and Christians worship is not the same god.

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

Read the Pulitzer-Prize-winning author of the link (none / 0) (#600)
by Handyman on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 09:48:12 PM EST

next time.

"Muslim assumptions on the same point are, if anything, even more formally enshrined in tradition than Jewish and Christian assumptions. Muslims battled those who worshipped false gods, beginning with the Arab polytheists of Mecca and Medina, but they officially tolerated Jews and Christians because they understood the latter to be worshipping the one true God, the God or, in Arabic, Allah. Regrettably, or so Muslims believed, Jews and Christians had adulterated the primeval, pure 'islam of Abraham with an assortment of pagan errors, but all the same these "peoples of the book" were not worshipping a false god."

Mohammad may well have been mistaken, but that doesn't make "his" religion not worship the same god as Judiasm and Christianity.

--
Never be afraid to be the first one on the dance floor.
[ Parent ]
*sighs* I did RTFA... (none / 0) (#604)
by esrever on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 10:20:49 PM EST

...and he didn't win the Pulitzer Prize for this article, so your non-sequiter cuts no ice here.

If I assert that your mother is Fat, Hairy, and Bald, and that I love your mother because of it, would you agree that we both love the same woman?

Or, to put it a different way, if I claimed that you didn't have a clue what your mother looked like, but in fact that I did, and I worshipped the ground that she walked upon because of her Fat, Balding, Hairyness, would you say "Gosh, I guess that we do both love the same woman after all, wow, let's put aside our differences and sing kum-bay-ah?"

I don't think so.  A muslim asserting that he worships the god of Abraham does not make it so.

Or to put it once more in a different way, ironically the author of the article that you linked to highlights it nicely without even realising it, he notes that the Muslims asserted that they worshipped the god of Abraham, and then proceeded to tell the Jewish scholars et al that they didn't know what they were talking about when they spoke on the nature of god.  Well, either God exists, or he doesn't, and if he exists, either his nature is a particular way, or it is not; but it can't be both.  So either the muslims are wrong, or the jews/christians are wrong, or there is no god, but it is ludicrous to suggest that they are both right and they both worship the same god.

Put it finally this way, from a christian perspective, god gives some instructions on how he is to be worshipped, yes?  So, if you aren't following those instructions, then you aren't worshipping the christian god, yes?  This applies equally for jews and muslims also.

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

Just this last... (none / 1) (#614)
by Handyman on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 05:42:37 AM EST

And then I'm throwing in the towel.

Well, either God exists, or he doesn't, and if he exists, either his nature is a particular way, or it is not; but it can't be both.

Why can't it be? Since he is God, after all, what's to stop him from possessing a different nature in the eyes of every single person who has ever lived? Your analysis rests on the premise that God's nature is both knowable and constant. Since (as far as I'm aware) nobody yet knows the true nature of God, isn't it possible that different groups might have different ideas of the nature of the same God?

So either the muslims are wrong, or the jews/christians are wrong, or there is no god, but it is ludicrous to suggest that they are both right and they both worship the same god.

Try this example. If your own mother were rail-thin and completely hairless, then you could assert that my mother were both fat and hairy. At the same time, since I may have met women who were much fatter and hairier than my mother, I could say that she was neither fat nor hairy. Her weight and the number of hairs that are on her body are both facts; but our opinions of her fat and hairy nature differ, and strongly.

Another illustration. There are some people I know whom I do not like. Although I try my best to be polite, I probably come across as sarcastic and taciturn to them. However, when I'm talking to somebody I like very much, I can be much more outgoing and genial. Thus, a person I like has a very different picture of me than does a person I do not like. Does this make me a paradox? Is it not possible for my nature to encompass facets of both impoliteness and gregariousness, each to be expressed in its own time?

My problem with your argument is that you suppose that, since Christianity, Islam, and Judiasm have differing opinions of the nature of the same God, that they could not possibly be referring to the same being. My point is that, though they may have different (and possibly relativistic) ideas of how he acts or what his nature is, they can all be talking about the same guy, just as all of the people I know, whether they like me or not, are speaking to the same person when they talk to me.

--
Never be afraid to be the first one on the dance floor.
[ Parent ]
That's _abrahamic_ to you, infidel (none / 0) (#714)
by ksandstr on Wed Jun 02, 2004 at 07:43:49 AM EST

n/t

[ Parent ]
What part of 'judge not' don't you understand?[nt] (none / 0) (#582)
by esrever on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 05:22:13 PM EST



Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]
oops (3.00 / 2) (#450)
by limivore on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 03:52:31 PM EST

I meant to say: "the visible components are PEOPLE and words". sorry.
HEY KUROSHIN : how about giving us one of those kinds of forums where you can edit your posts?

Having editing options (none / 0) (#719)
by WTF OUTNUMBERED on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 09:46:14 AM EST

Yes, please give us all some ways to easily correct our own mistakes.
-And what Reality? The virtual world solves ...
[ Parent ]
Burnt corpses hanging from a bridge vs. nipple (3.00 / 10) (#451)
by mmuskratt on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 03:53:07 PM EST

It isn't just this movie, it is violence everywhere. How many children got to see the footage of the "contractors/civilians" (enemy combatants/soldiers of fortune) in the papers (front page) or on TV? Granted, it wasn't the SuperBowl, but to make such a big deal over sex (Howard Stern/Janet Jackson) and not recognize that this is far worse, in my opinion, is sociopathic. These Americans are seriously fucked up.

amen (nt) (none / 1) (#453)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 03:56:45 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
That's It (none / 0) (#549)
by jameth on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 01:20:23 PM EST

I'm writing an article explaining how violence is not necessarily evil, as the world appears to be full of people who refuse to consider that possibility.

[ Parent ]
even better question (none / 1) (#554)
by Wah on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 02:28:09 PM EST

how many television networks in the U.S. are closely aligned with defense companies?

anyone looking for media bias need go no further.
--
'The Matrix' is a better interpretation of quantum mechanics than Copenhagen.
[ Parent ]

You're kidding, right? (none / 0) (#647)
by randyk on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 08:41:39 PM EST

I mean, GE owns NBC, and they "Bring Good Things to Life!" They're a shiny, happy company that just makes mice things for us!

Actually, I'd like to own an Apache helicopter, now that I think about it. They're quite choice, and you can't hear them coming, which is a definite plus.



[ Parent ]
Oh and that's NICE things (none / 0) (#648)
by randyk on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 08:43:26 PM EST

The mice things are from another network.

[ Parent ]

Wow (none / 3) (#477)
by the77x42 on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 06:10:46 PM EST

You are so right! I never knew that there was a difference between what people said and what they actually did!
  • Free the people by invading them!
  • Slaughter a whole race of Indians and take their land but yet say genocide is a problem!
  • Believe that we all evolved from monkies but really believe that it was really some dude's rib!
  • Execute people because killing is bad!
  • Preach a live of celibacy but then rape little boys... whoops, that's Catholic, not Christian.
The point is, honestly, unless the porn is little boys having sex with priests in a pool of blood, religion is going to condemn it as evil, killer boobies.


"We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
"You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

I think a lot of people missed the point (2.70 / 10) (#504)
by ninja rmg on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 10:24:09 PM EST

Of my other post in this story, but rather than try to explain it, I'll just leave you with the following:

Violence is at the core of Christianity. It is what Christianity is all about. Denial of the flesh. Death. Christianity is inherently morbid.

Of course, no one is going to willingly subscribe to such a bizarre religion, so a lot of effort goes into sugar coating what is really a very bitter pill.



Morbid is too extreme (none / 1) (#529)
by nymia_g on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 02:33:44 AM EST

I should probably protest to the use of the word morbid because Jesus did not emphasize the sweetness of death, on the contrary, his ministry was to cater to the poor, sick and tax collectors who were considered vile and evil.

Violence is part of it simply because the work required to take this kind of job involves hate and fear coming from established elite. This is normal for people who rally the cause of the poor and the oppressed, they normally end up being crucified, tortured, killed and fed to the lions.

Try doing this job of serving the poor and oppressed in any country. Fight for their rights and see how the elite will send their armies and take you to be tortured or jailed.

[ Parent ]
You remind me of Marilyn Manson. (none / 0) (#563)
by it certainly is on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 10:08:48 PM EST

Although he used many more words to make the same eloquent point.

It is sad to think that the first few people on earth needed no books, movies, games or music to inspire cold-blooded murder. The day that Cain bashed his brother Abel's brains in, the only motivation he needed was his own human disposition to violence. Whether you interpret the Bible as literature or as the final word of whatever God may be, Christianity has given us an image of death and sexuality that we have based our culture around. A half-naked dead man hangs in most homes and around our necks, and we have just taken that for granted all our lives. Is it a symbol of hope or hopelessness? The world's most famous murder-suicide was also the birth of the death icon -- the blueprint for celebrity. Unfortunately, for all of their inspiring morality, nowhere in the Gospels is intelligence praised as a virtue.
You can read the full text here. It's a very powerful summary of the media circus following the Columbine High School murders. It's a shame his music's shit, his statement is powerful and insightful.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

I've always found Christianity fairly disturbing. (none / 1) (#564)
by ninja rmg on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 10:17:04 PM EST

I especially remember listening to a Gospel about how sinners would be burnt like chaff when I was young. Horrible stuff.

Of course, none of this is new. Nietzsche lays out the case in great depth and detail.

Oh, and Marilyn Manson is a psycho. Anyone who sees Satanism as a compelling alternative to Christianity is not worth listening to. Guys like him just give ammunition to moral majority crazies.



[ Parent ]

Hmm. (none / 1) (#566)
by it certainly is on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 11:10:38 PM EST

I had a look. According to his public statements, it seems Manson follows Anton Lavey's "Satanism", i.e. kinky atheism rather than actual "Biblical Satan" belief and worship. On the other hand, he is willing to consider the existence of the Christian God in order to mock it, which runs counter to atheistic dogma. We must therefore conclude he is simply a teenage rebel who talks bullshit for fun and profit.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Yuck. (none / 0) (#568)
by ninja rmg on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 11:47:17 PM EST

Don't do that.



[ Parent ]
Nietzsche and Satanism (none / 0) (#706)
by speek on Sun Apr 25, 2004 at 05:33:06 PM EST

Are essentially the same thing. Nietzsche presents his arguments in a superior way, and Levay's Satanism is a mere populist version of Nietzsche, but it still seems odd to hold one in such high esteem and the other with such disdain.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

dear sir (none / 0) (#580)
by Battle Troll on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 05:11:15 PM EST

Please stop trolling and acting stupid.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
NEVER !!! (none / 1) (#581)
by ninja rmg on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 05:14:22 PM EST





[ Parent ]
in all seriousness (none / 0) (#584)
by Battle Troll on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 05:36:05 PM EST

If you play dumb long enough, it gets hard to stop.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
I'm sorry, (none / 0) (#585)
by ninja rmg on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 05:47:36 PM EST

What was the specific nature of your grievance where the comment in question is concerned?



[ Parent ]
this statement is just stupidity (none / 0) (#588)
by Battle Troll on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 05:58:49 PM EST

Violence is at the core of Christianity. It is what Christianity is all about. Denial of the flesh. Death. Christianity is inherently morbid.

I mean, it didn't even get rated up.

Many intelligent people disagree with you. On what grounds are you right and they wrong?
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

On the same grounds that any two (none / 0) (#589)
by ninja rmg on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 06:05:23 PM EST

Intelligent people disagree. There are issues of opinion and values involved. One person is willing to dismiss what one person finds fundamental. There is enough contention on this particular matter that I'm a bit surprised by your choice of argument.

As you know, I prefer to make vague, incendiary remarks and then whitewash and recontextualize them to suit the thread when someone comes after me. If you'd like, we can go through that process right here and now.



[ Parent ]

bah (none / 0) (#591)
by Battle Troll on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 06:19:16 PM EST

There is enough contention on this particular matter that I'm a bit surprised by your choice of argument.

You misunderstand - I don't want to show your statement to be untrue so much as I want to show that it's an intellectually irresponsible thing to say, particularly as a top-level post.

This is the kind of place where people are apt to take some piece of nonsense, such as your statement, and assimilate it undigested into their depressingly unoriginal personal mythology. Did you ever read Turgenev on Tolstoy? He has this one letter (quoted in Henri Troyat) where he comments that Tolstoy, as an autodidact, had been subjected to very little external criticism in the development of his views and, accordingly, has an innocent's tendency to latch onto some discredited system such as historical determinism and to use it to explain absolutely everything in life. Just think of all the Randites, IndyMedia socialists, and worst of all, embryonic net.kooks who have yet to choose their particular perversion, who may be reading your posts.

Oh, and as for morbidity, I leave it to you to decide which among the pagans, the Catholics, and the Communists have proven to be the most morbid in the long run.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

I see, (none / 0) (#592)
by ninja rmg on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 06:59:14 PM EST

Well, of course this criticism is certainly applicable to many of my trade, and I suppose it's a good one. You offer a straightforward plan to address these concerns, viz. cease and desist all further usage of intellectually irresponsible and/or dishonest commentary, argument, and innuendo at the top level of internet discussions.

It is a noble plan and would certainly go a long way toward addressing your concerns. At the same time, however, I can hardly troll without posting outrageously false or at least unscrupulous material at the top level of discussions. Similarly, with the tremendous bulk of inane chatter one encounters at the top level, I can hardly troll without highlighting such outrageously false and unscrupulous material with bold font face.

While I can see the needs of the innocent have been neglected, I fear that under your plan, the needs of those, like myself, who would prey on the innocent will be neglected instead. Since I am the one asked to reform and the current state of affairs is clearly in my favor while the one you propose is so onerously not, I find myself disinclined to acquiesce.

Of course, these are important concerns and I hope that some plan that satisfies both sides of this issue will present itself.



[ Parent ]

morbid? (none / 0) (#593)
by Handyman on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 07:52:14 PM EST

I have to jump in here..

Oh, and as for morbidity, I leave it to you to decide which among the pagans, the Catholics, and the Communists have proven to be the most morbid in the long run.

I don't know who in particular you're attempting to frame as morbid, but of those three, only Catholics adorn their houses (and often their persons) with icons of a dead man nailed to a tree.

That's pretty damned morbid.

--
Never be afraid to be the first one on the dance floor.
[ Parent ]
Why? (none / 0) (#603)
by nymia_g on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 10:03:10 PM EST

Why is it morbid to see a dead man nailed to a tree? You never provided the premise to your conclusion, though.

[ Parent ]
Fair question. (none / 0) (#615)
by Handyman on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 05:53:02 AM EST

My understanding of the word morbid was flawed.

I had thought that it meant an unhealthy obsession with death, but after searching several online dictionaries, that is either not mentioned as a definition or mentioned only briefly. The more accepted definition is something causing or related to disease.

My intended premise was that Catholicism is preoccupied with the death of their Lord, my proof was to be the omnipresent imagery of him nailed to a tree, and my conclusion that Catholicism is morbid. Although my conclusion is incorrect, I do still think it disturbing that Catholics choose to idolize their saviour in a position of ultimate defeat. I understand the intended symbolism, but it still just seems weird to me.

--
Never be afraid to be the first one on the dance floor.
[ Parent ]
morbidity (none / 0) (#627)
by Battle Troll on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 10:42:24 AM EST

The Catholics have crucifixes in their houses. Meanwhile, the Communists have at vaiour times had pyramids of skulls (Pol Pot,) forcible abortions, state-sponsored organ trafficking, engineered famines (Ukraine, 7 million victims,) etc. While the Catholics may well have a more morbid iconography, I submit that the Communists' actions are far more likely to horribly kill people.

As for paganism, you need to brush up on your social history of antiquity; it seems to me that such things as men castrating themselves to hurl their bleeding genitals against the idol of Cybele, or the Carthaginian Senate voting the sacrifice of 5,000 babies (2nd Punic war,) are much worse than having a crucifix on yor wall.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

Indeed (none / 0) (#636)
by Handyman on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 02:28:29 PM EST

I have to say, the thing that bothered me was the ubiquity of the Catholic crucifix, as opposed to its specific morbidity.

However, you are right about the Communists and pagans. I concede your points.

--
Never be afraid to be the first one on the dance floor.
[ Parent ]
Well said (2.85 / 7) (#519)
by coljac on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 12:24:59 AM EST

As a foreigner (.au) living in the USA, I'm constantly amazed at this. Violence is such a part of American culture, sometimes even I am a little shocked. On the other hand, offensive language or simple nudity (even in a non-sexual context) are treated as a stark moral affront. I, too, want to know what the perceived danger is in a child seeing a naked person.

It reminds me of the book Harmful to Minors which presented the thesis that overprotecting children from sex is harmful. Needless to say you can imagine the reception this book got in the USA. I think I might go and buy a copy.

BTW, Christianity sure is a sick-ass way to construct a worldview.



---
Whether or not life is discovered there I think Jupiter should be declared an enemy planet. - Jack Handey

Irrational too (none / 3) (#561)
by cam on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 09:59:44 PM EST

On the other hand, offensive language or simple nudity (even in a non-sexual context) are treated as a stark moral affront. I, too, want to know what the perceived danger is in a child seeing a naked person.

One of the American fellows I worked with in the US used to make the point that the likelihood that a person will see a naked body in the flesh through marriage or love is nearly 100%. The likelihood that someone will see a dead body that has been killed violently is nearer 1%.

The likelihood that mainstream mass media will show you a dead body is nearly 100% and the likelihood that mainstream mass media will show you a naked body is near 1%. Totally opposite to real life.

cam
Freedom, Liberty, Equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

Well, (none / 0) (#626)
by Kax on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 10:00:15 AM EST

since everyone will thus be exposed to naked bodies in real life, we don't need them on TV, right? :)

And vice-versa..

[ Parent ]

Christianity is receiving a backlash (none / 0) (#525)
by sharadov on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 01:19:30 AM EST

Well, the christians have made it a point to hassle natives in every culture. Christianity is a propoganda religion. Why do you think are the Islamic fundamentalists lashing back at this country? If you dig deep enough , the Islamic fundamentalism started as a backlash to Christianity.

good point (none / 0) (#720)
by Spidey783 on Fri Oct 15, 2004 at 10:00:27 AM EST

I think there may be more reasons than that for the islamic fundementalists attacking this country, but I agree that christians should spend less energy pushing their beliefs on others and more energy on actually helping people in need. I could be wrong, but it seems this comes from the fact that more christians=more money for the church? I am sure that has nothing to do with it.

[ Parent ]
Plan of Salvation (none / 0) (#527)
by nymia_g on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 02:19:20 AM EST

but it must remain subservient to rational thought, or some devil who is just good at manipulating the symbols can come along and sink the bloody party
I've thought about how anyone could play the role of Christ and steal the religion out of the hands of Jesus. My weak and feeble mind led me to believe that this is entirely possible. For it would have been John The Baptist who was crucified and rose from the dead, or it could have been anybody, like Simon Magus. But the thing that really brought the conclusion that it is not possible for a deception to occur can be attributed to the Old Testament wherein the Son of Man belonging to the house of David will suffer to save the souls. The prophecy in the OT actually sealed the relation of salvation to a specific person. No one else can play this part or it would have been nothing.



So let me get this straight.. (none / 1) (#578)
by JohnnyCannuk on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 05:06:19 PM EST

..you are using the writings in the earlier part of of a book to prove the writings in a later part of the same book?

A book that is a collection of books written by men at different times, under different socio-political circumstances, the earliest known of which was wriiten close to 70 years after the alleged events?

A book that has no historical evidence for any of the fantastic stories in it?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Instead of being so wrapped up in the meta-physical BS of your religion - There is a supreme being called God, Jesus was his son, Jesus died and rose from the dead 3 days later, Jesus performed miracles, yadda yadda - why don't you follow what Jesus is supposed to have said? You know all that Love thy neighbour as thy self, Judge not lest ye be judged, giving to the poor, peace and non-violence. Maybe then you'll be more interested in making thworld a better place for all people, instead of being convinced you are somehow choosen and right and feel compelled to force your will upon the rest of us, without our consent.


We have just religion enough to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another - Jonathan Swift
[ Parent ]

sorry, can't rebut (none / 1) (#598)
by nymia_g on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 09:40:55 PM EST

ad hominem argumentum.

nothing to argue about.

[ Parent ]
Ad hominem? Really? (none / 0) (#622)
by JohnnyCannuk on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 09:33:17 AM EST

I will grant you my last paragraph might be contrued as such (although it really is a serious question), but the rest of my post still stands.

Since you seem to willing to use logic against me, please tell me how using one reference in a book written by one group of men at an earlier time can be used to prove an even earlier reference in the same collection of books,written by other men, and deem it to be proof of something extraordinary or true? I would say this arguement is an instance of False Premise with a dash of Cirular Reasoning if you wish to be logical about it.

Nothing personal against you, I just wish to piont out the holes in your argument. As there exists no other evidence, it is entirely possible (and likely in my opinion, but that's just an opinion) that the writers of the New Testament (who themselves were not alive at the time the events they describe were supposed to have taken place and did not have first hand contact with the historical Jesus, if he existed) wrote their accounts to purposely match the Old Testament 'prophesies' in order to make Jesus the Messiah. Why? Perhaps to fill the religious power vaccum left when the Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 A.D. the stories were written in such a way that they simultaneously 'made nice' with the Romans (by painting Pilate as a nice guy who wanted to let Jesus go but was forced to kill him by the evil Jews, who were by that time the enemies of Rome. The actual historical Pilate, whose existance is documented in several places other than the Bible, would never have done that - he was a brutal blood thirsty thug) and take the mantle of 'choosen people' from the Jews by using thier ancient prophesies to paint their leader as the Jews own Messiah.

Can you say 'self-fufilling Prophesy'?

Now, if you have any other logical arguements to explain any of this, I will be happy listen. If you can provide any corroborating evidence for your claims of prophesy fufillment please provide them.

I hope you realize that my arguments can be applied to any book, not just the bible.

Now, I'll warn you, this is my opinion and you might consider it an ad hominem attack, so be careful as you seem sensitive to this kind of thing:

I find it ironic that a person who believes in a supreme being that has existed forever and performs all sorts of miracles and violations of the laws of physics or accepts the divinity of a person for whom there is not one single shread of historical evidence that he even existed, let alone did the things he is supposed to have done, would argue from a position of logic. To accept these things in the abscence of proof or evidence is quite illogical.

Feel free to ignore my ad hominem attacks on you and address the orginal issue - you remember, the whole self-fufilling prophesy thing?
We have just religion enough to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another - Jonathan Swift
[ Parent ]

Marked-for-death Jesus (none / 0) (#693)
by nymia_g on Wed Apr 21, 2004 at 02:20:18 AM EST

As there exists no other evidence, it is entirely possible (and likely in my opinion, but that's just an opinion) that the writers of the New Testament (who themselves were not alive at the time the events they describe were supposed to have taken place and did not have first hand contact with the historical Jesus, if he existed) wrote their accounts to purposely match the Old Testament 'prophesies' in order to make Jesus the Messiah. Why?
Excellent argument, I am honored to be answering this. Your greatness has shone forth!

Let me put it this way, I'm sure you have your ancestors known the way my ancestors were known. How can it be possible for me to know my ancestors without the help of a book? Surely there must some other way of knowing them. Well, that is what the unwritten part of tradition is for, by filling the missing pieces to make a consistent whole. These people used two methods in passing the tradition to the next generation. The imperial Romans and Jewish elite tried their best to eradicate all written records of the Galilean Revolutionary (Jesus), but guess what? The Apostles carried it in their minds. They went underground taking only their sandals and clothes up to Europe as far the ends of the Earth (Et Brittania et Hibernia vident).

The prophecy was part of the Jewish tradition, Jesus being first and foremost a Jew had to be ordered under Jewish customs and traditions.
Perhaps to fill the religious power vaccum left when the Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 A.D. the stories were written in such a way that they simultaneously 'made nice' with the Romans (by painting Pilate as a nice guy who wanted to let Jesus go but was forced to kill him by the evil Jews, who were by that time the enemies of Rome. The actual historical Pilate, whose existance is documented in several places other than the Bible, would never have done that - he was a brutal blood thirsty thug) and take the mantle of 'choosen people' from the Jews by using thier ancient prophesies to paint their leader as the Jews own Messiah.
As far as my research is concerned, it seemed likely that the killing of Jesus rested not on the hands of the Jews nor the bloodthirsty procurator, but in the hands of Jesus himself. Jesus may have chickened-out and took the easier way out, becoming a Rabbi for life, then dying of old age in Galilee surrounded by the apostles (discipuli). He had the power to do that too, and he could have taken that route. But, it was not the case.
Now, if you have any other logical arguements to explain any of this, I will be happy listen. If you can provide any corroborating evidence for your claims of prophesy fufillment please provide them.
This is all covered in the Magisterium Ecclessiae. The whole of Europe became the refuge of these wanted for death religious cult called Christianity.
Now, I'll warn you, this is my opinion and you might consider it an ad hominem attack, so be careful as you seem sensitive to this kind of thing:

I find it ironic that a person who believes in a supreme being that has existed forever and performs all sorts of miracles and violations of the laws of physics or accepts the divinity of a person for whom there is not one single shread of historical evidence that he even existed, let alone did the things he is supposed to have done, would argue from a position of logic. To accept these things in the abscence of proof or evidence is quite illogical.
No, not at all. It is very possible to find a person both believer and scientifically inclined. Cicero recognized that as well when he said "Philosophia ars vitae est." And he said it well; for that I believe it to be true.

[ Parent ]
Extraordinary (none / 1) (#655)
by OldCoder on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 10:36:57 PM EST

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
There is no scientific definition of extraordinary, so you are arguing for subjectivity. You could define extraordinary as "Rare", but then you'd be saying that rare claims require rare evidence.

The older part is a different book written before the second part, so it matters. It ain't all just one book. That doesn't mean the interpretation is right.

--
By reading this signature, you have agreed.
Copyright © 2003 OldCoder
[ Parent ]

What I meant.. (none / 0) (#671)
by JohnnyCannuk on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 11:32:28 AM EST

Well what I meant was that if I claim I have a TV at home that gets CNN, you would not be surprised because you have seen that before yourself, or have seen scientific papers and evidence on the propogation of radio waves to deliver video and audio content in real time. This is not 'extraordinary' (meaning not ordinary or beyond ordinary).

Now, If I claim that I have a TV at home that receives programming from another planet, or from the dead or is able to view events in the past as they happen (when NOT tuned to the History Channel ;-) ), THAT would be an 'extraordinary' claim and most certainly would require me to provided you with a great deal of substantial evidence to back up that claim - 'extraordinary' evidence to back up the 'extraordinary' claim.

Now, for the book or books in question simply having one chapter of a book written at a later time and by different people is not 'extraordinary'. As I stated in my other post, this could easily be explained as the later author writing his version of event to seem to fufill the earlier prophesy - the self fufilling prophesy.At the time the earliest know version of these books were written, it was very politically and culturally advantageous to seem to have fufilled these prophesies. Much like all those psychics that claim today that they predicted the 9/11 attack before it happened, we have no independant, corroborating evidence of the fufillment of the prophesy. That is, we have no 'extraordinary' evidence or proof to back up the claims.

What kind of proof? Well for starters, physical or historical evidence OTHER than the Bible to prove that a rabbi named Yeshua (Jesus) actually existed. Third party chronicles that were not themselves Christians and were alive at the time of the events perhaps. Evidence that has withstood serious scientific and historical investigation - that means the James Osuary, which has been proven to be faked, is out. Perhaps earlier originals of the 4 Gospels that do not contradict each other as to the events of Easter (read the 4 accounts yourself and see the often incompatible differences in the stories) and other parts of Yeshua's life.

In short, If I make a prediction that something will happen in the future, in order to prove in the future that you 'fufilled' my prophesy, you will need a lot more proof than a few of you friends saying 'look he did it, a guy I knew was there' without independant evidence, like a video or a third party with no self-interst confirming the details. That is why no prophesy has ever been proven fufilled.

Without it, the arguement is just another form of circular reasoning and is therefore illogical and proof of nothing.
We have just religion enough to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another - Jonathan Swift
[ Parent ]

Let's not forget... (none / 0) (#679)
by handslikesnakes on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 02:03:49 PM EST

...that the two (contradictory) lineages tracing Joseph back to David in the NT aren't particularly relevant unless you reject the virgin birth. I mean, God was Jesus' daddy, right?



[ Parent ]
my thoughts on sex & violence etc... (none / 2) (#530)
by SaintPort on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 03:24:02 AM EST

circletimessquare, thanks for giving us a forum to address this important topic. I only wish you had sourced the first use of The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre parody title in the media, as I can't be bothered to ferret it out myself.

Now, as others noted, the public outcry over Janet's debusting was mostly over the context. Had she done this in a 'R' rated pay-per-view, there'd be little commotion. The public at large is already sensative to overt sexuality on TV. Some of which stems from Chrisitian ethics, some of which stems from innate modesty, and some from female self-esteem issues (which stem from the pitiful way men objectify women).

The main harm I think we'll see from Janet's stunt is the oneupmanship that will follow. And all this sexual 'freedom' does encourage little girls to behave immodestly, and little boys to behave like sexual rogues. I'm sure some will think this will be a good thing for all those repressed USians. I don't. The message sent by all this is... 'sex is a dirty, fun, violent sport'.

The Passion is indeed a disturbing film. I am sure that many people, especially children will have difficulty dealing with it. There will be many hours of sleep lost and nightmares.

It can be argued that the violence is core to the story, and that the story is core to humanity. Everyone does indeed need to understand the crucifixtion of Jesus, as it is part of the salvation process.

But do we need to see the gore?

I think eating fowl is a healthy thing. But I have no desire to visit a slaughterhouse to more fully appreciate the protein.

Then again, maybe I should visit the slaughterhouse, so I can more appreciate the life that was shed for my dinner and the people who work to make my life comfortable.

All this made me think about the images that disturbed me as a child. I vividly remember...
In the movie Camelot, the burning of Guinevere at the stake. I was too young to understand the charge of adultery, but I did understand the idea of death by burning.
In the movie The Mummy, I understood the horrible death of having the tongue cut out and being buried alive.
These images, not gory at all in technical terms, did keep me awake at night. I suffered the victims' pain. I learned empathy.

On the other hand, I saw many slasher films that depicted horrible body counts, in gory technicolor, and I didn't miss a beat. Perhaps these experiences hardened my heart.

So it is all about the context. There have been plenty of breast shots in TV shows about breast cancer and breast surgery. Not a lot of outcry there. And the real danger in depiction of violence is when the context depersonifies the suffering.

--
Search the Scriptures
Start with some cheap grace...Got Life?

No thanks. (none / 2) (#565)
by skyknight on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 10:55:38 PM EST

Everyone does indeed need to understand the crucifixtion of Jesus, as it is part of the salvation process.

I guess you might say that I don't share your world view.



It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
are you going to honestly (none / 0) (#602)
by SaintPort on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 09:58:06 PM EST

suggest that anyone is better-off ignorant?

Everyone should understand this, even if they reject it, if for nothing more than cultural reasons.

--
Search the Scriptures
Start with some cheap grace...Got Life?

[ Parent ]

Cultural reasons? (none / 1) (#605)
by skyknight on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 10:21:45 PM EST

That's not that you said.

Everyone does indeed need to understand the crucifixtion of Jesus, as it is part of the salvation process.

That sentence makes it pretty clear to me that you were not proposing that non-believers go to see it for cultural purposes.



It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
you are correct (none / 0) (#606)
by SaintPort on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 10:33:39 PM EST

And I do not put energy into spreading the Xian Salvation meme because I just want y'all to be literate.

But, on your part, I can see no value in simply choosing to not understand an argument so central to current affairs.

Oh, and for the record, I am not pushing anyone to go see this film. So far, I am neutral on the value of this as far as soul-winning. There will no doubt be some converts through the film. But there will also be some folks who are offended. I'm not particularly worried about this either way.

I would probably recommend a Billy Graham Revival over this film.

I have not seen the movie yet, though I will eventually since I am interested in experiencing the language treatment.

--
Search the Scriptures
Start with some cheap grace...Got Life?

[ Parent ]

Uhhh (3.00 / 2) (#692)
by Dyolf Knip on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 09:07:13 PM EST

But, on your part, I can see no value in simply choosing to not understand an argument so central to current affairs.

If by that you mean that I should make an effort to learn the origins and past behavior of the freakish death-cult of Christianity that, unfortunately, holds direct sway over much of the United States, perhaps you might have a point. Know thy enemy, and all that. But we have history books for that sort of thing which, on the whole, are a tad more accurate and relevant and unbiased than a Hollywood snuff film and certainly moreso than the Bible itself.

Besides, I learn all about Christians just by listening to people like you. As far as I can tell, you're more interested in the events surrounding my death and my 'soul', whatever the hell that is, than anything that'll go on in life. Hence, you can never really be trusted to think rationally about the Real World and the people in it. That you base decisions on a 2000-3000 year-old book of Babylonian fairy tales, and even go so far as to tell me I'm a bad person for not doing so, is fairly indicative of that.

---
If you can't learn to do something well, learn to enjoy doing it poorly.

Dyolf Knip
[ Parent ]

And you've fully investigated all other religions (none / 0) (#678)
by handslikesnakes on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 01:56:45 PM EST

...I presume?

I mean, Prometheus suffers eternally in a pretty unpleasant way so that you may have fire, and he never gets to be Zeus' right hand man. Why do you reject his sacrifice?



[ Parent ]
'oneupmanship that will follow' (none / 1) (#590)
by Jed Smith on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 06:14:38 PM EST

It's been months since the Superbowl.

Aside from that, from what I can tell of your writing and signature, you're religious, which brings me to my next point:

For sake of brevity, I will not drop my entire history on you. However, I grew up in two homes: one Christian, one not. My father introduced me to all the cool things in life, while my mother censored them and worked after every trip to Dad's to purge the evil from my mind. For all the years of my childhood, I was never allowed to watch anything sexual, profane, or violent.

As I got older I had to learn about these "evil" things -- sex being the one I can bring to my mind most clearly -- on my own. This inexperience made me the social outcast. But when I discovered these great things that Mom would never let me near, I realized more and more that my mother was engaging in a vast campaign to shield me from all the "evils" of the world -- leaving me inexperienced in simple knowledge of sex, drugs, anything. That was tough in my youth.

My thought on the "censorship" of the pulpit is that it produces nothing but inexperienced automatons. The fact is, this kind of stuff is in the world, and if a child has not been exposed to it previously, the effects can be quite damaging. My opinion is, let your kids watch these kinds of shows, and back the show with a reinforcing lesson on why what he/she just viewed is bad. Don't just shut it out.

It's always worse when kids find stuff out on their own. They usually don't know how to handle it.
_____
K5 is dead. Steve Ballmer made the most insightful comment on a story. -- jw32767
[ Parent ]

I follow your reasoning (none / 0) (#601)
by SaintPort on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 09:55:37 PM EST

But what we do not know is what bad things might have happened were you not so protected. Let's face it, this was protection. Maybe overprotection? Maybe. But hazards are to be avoided, especially when we are protecting our loved ones.

When I take my dog for rides in my van, I seatbelt her in, no joke. I'm sure she thinks I'm just spoiling her fun by not letting her cavort around and hang out the windows, but I can imagine the liklihood of her falling out or distracting my driving enough to cause an accident.

Your mom loves you. Appreciate it.

It's always worse when kids find stuff out on their own. They usually don't know how to handle it.

Point taken. If a parent can expose their kids to life and guide them through it mentorally, that is often a good approach.

On an aside, my mom prevented me from watching Love American Style. I thought that was really odd. 'What's wrong with love?'

Later she explained that she wanted me to have a deeper appreciation of romantic love than the way it was portrayed on that show.

What did I lose? Nothing.
What did I gain? Maybe I might not have saved myself for my wife. Maybe. But I do know that my mom took care of me. She loved me.

Have a nice day.
<><

--
Search the Scriptures
Start with some cheap grace...Got Life?

[ Parent ]

Saved yourself for your wife? (none / 0) (#677)
by handslikesnakes on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 01:52:48 PM EST

Yeah, it would be real tragic if your penis had been in somebody else. Meaningless symbolism is worth so much more than harmless pleasure.



[ Parent ]
Re your thoughts (none / 1) (#674)
by spakka on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 01:17:56 PM EST

It can be argued that the violence is core to the story, and that the story is core to humanity. Everyone does indeed need to understand the crucifixtion of Jesus, as it is part of the salvation process.

Most secular people tend to regard Christians as comical rather than scary. I think this movie is useful for reminding people how sick the Christian fantasy really is.

[ Parent ]
Fundamentalist idiots (none / 0) (#542)
by jope on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 10:40:39 AM EST

If you have to many in your society, they will impose their idiotic superstitions on all others and make everyone else miserable too. Trying to understand their morals is as futile as discussing their ancient superstitions. People believe in witchcraft, in the power of planets on their lives, they believe they drink to blood of god in church or commit mass murder by jerking off and they believe that an exposed tit is more dangerous than a gun much like others believe they go directly to paradise and get 70 virgins when they blow themselves up in the name of Allah.

Um, Have You Ever Studied Literature? (none / 2) (#544)
by jameth on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 11:50:53 AM EST

If someone took this movie to an isolated village on the Amazon whose inhabitants knew nothing of Christianity, and they showed the Jesus Chainsaw Massacre to them, then all the villagers would wonder is what exactly this snuff film had to do with anything. If said movie were shown to them by a missionary, I am sure the isolated villagers would wonder why this odd person who was obsessed with violence wanted them to join a sadomasochistic blood cult.

My, that's a fairly broad assumption about the Amazonians. So, people in villages are incapable of seeing martyrdom and deeper meaning, just as you are? Possibly, someone foreign to the Christian history would watch the Passion and think that it was a well-put-together story of a martyr which developed very strong cathartic emotions in its viewers.

That one thing about violence: Those who are truly human can watch someone suffer violence and can feel empathy for them.

On a similar note, did you ever wonder why some people watch something like Schindler's List or The Pianist and call it a good movie. I mean, there's all this pain and suffering, and the people watching it feel something strongly. Maybe, just maybe, you should do some study of ancient ideas such as catharsis and martyrdom and empathy.


Oh no you didn't (3.00 / 6) (#569)
by BloodmoonACK on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 12:38:52 AM EST

Please please please don't compare Shindler's List or The Pianist to The Passion of the Christ. One was about suffering - let's see how much graphic sadism we can get away with by showing it on screen! But let's mask it by calling it religious - face it, if this were about any other person, it would horrify a lot more people. Frankly, as someone who grew up in a Christian household, Jesus' sacrifice was not physical at all, IMHO. So he was tortured - so fucking what? That's nothing. Physical pain. His real sacrifice was spiritual - that's what you're supposed to be thanking him for, NOT that he was flayed. To me, this is just a way to capitalize on American society's obsession with violence.

Shindler's List, OTOH, is about a man in a concentration camp trying to save Jews from getting killed in a very real way. It had a message. Passion's message seems to be, look, Jesus got tortured. So....

And The Pianist is more of an adventure story than anything else - look what this guy lived through, how does he escape? What is the picture of life during the holocaust? Are we watching him get repeatedly flayed? No.

"It's like declaring a 'war on crime' and then claiming every (accused) thief is an 'enemy combatant'." - Hizonner
[ Parent ]

Um, Cruxifiction Not Suffering? (none / 0) (#624)
by jameth on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 09:40:29 AM EST

The Passion was about suffering. Christ suffered and died.

The Passion's message was to help people in realizing how much he actually suffered. You are correct: many idiots fail to realize that he was brutally tortured. When I was in school they explained to us what was meant by those tortures. It helped but the entire thing into context. The Passion gives that context to people, just as Schindler's List and The Pianist give context for people to view World War II in.

[ Parent ]

Well, when you really get down to it... (none / 0) (#646)
by justaghost on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 08:02:24 PM EST

...sure, crucifixion sounds terrible.  But if you can acknowledge that the person being crucified has no actual historical evidence (credible and contemporary) of his existence, you start to see a different picture emerge: a gratuitously violent STORY.  

A story with no historical credibility, being told to elicit a very human sympathetic response, for the purpose of solidifying the economic power of a moviemaker.  And it is in this way that the Passion of the Christ is perilously close to pornography in its own right.

-----

Not strong, only aggressive
Not free, only licensed
Not compassioniate, only polite
Not good, but well behaved.

[ Parent ]

No Historical Evidence... (none / 0) (#687)
by jameth on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 05:01:49 PM EST

...is a bit of an overstatement. No, the existence of Christ cannot be proven. Yes, it is doubted by many. There are many historic events which cannot be proven or disproven, and the events of the Gospels are one of those.

On the one hand, no solid proof. On the other, it would have taken a very well-coordinated conspiracy to put together what those people did. Such conspiracies have occurred, so it cannot be discounted out of hand. There is some evidence that Christ existed, but not enough to be solid.

Of more importance is the viewpoint of those involved in this debate. You cannot use this as an argument against Christians backing this story, as they believe it to be true. The argument is mostly about the morality of people putting the movie out there and backing it publicly, so you have to assume their beliefs to comment on their morality in the issue. Likewise, even if I do not believe the holocaust occurred (some idiots still claim it was a hoax) that does not make the creators of Schindler's List evil.

Also, even if it is a story, that does not make it bad. Many great epics are very violent and have little to no backing, yet we still consider them valid literature. The Iliad and the Oddessy are examples of this, as are most epics.

Claiming that it is being done for the purpose of solidifying the economic power of a moviemaker is another argument. Mel Gibson may be profiteering in this case, but the people who publicly endorse the movie are not. If Mel Gibson were to donate all the proceeds to charity, would the film then become legitimate when it otherwise would have been illegitimate? No. His income has no relation to the validity of this piece as a work of art.

(As a side note, I don't think you meant pornography. Not many people found The Passion arousing.)

[ Parent ]

There's a slight difference (3.00 / 4) (#570)
by Kasreyn on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 01:51:51 AM EST

The events in Schindler's List actually happened. That makes them much more meaningful to some of us.

Furthermore, there is character development. Oskar Schindler progresses from an amoral businessman to a secret rebel to, finally, a hero. From shrugging over the plight of the ghettos at the start of the movie, he winds up in the end on his knees sobbing because he wishes he'd saved more people from the slaughter.

That sort of character development is absent from Gibson's slasher flick. No one grows or learns anything. Christ's purpose is to die horribly. Everyone else's purpose is to kill Christ horribly. So Christ dies horribly, the end. Just watching someone suffer isn't enough to make their story interesting and instructive.

So, people in villages are incapable of seeing martyrdom and deeper meaning, just as you are?

Unless the movie took the time out to fully explain the old and new covenants, the history of the preceding prophets, and the explicit meaning of god's sacrifice in giving his only son to save the world, then whatever the villagers may see, they WON'T see the true Christian message. All they'll see is exactly what circletimessquare said they would: some guy dying horribly for no discernible or meaningful reason.

Get over the fucking movie. Disassociate it from your religion. By attacking Gibson's piece of junk, we're not attacking you. Geddit?

In any case, cts's point about the gore and violence remains unaddressed. Why can children see this film and not its equivalent, Hellraiser 4?


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
hey (none / 0) (#599)
by SaintPort on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 09:43:45 PM EST

The events in Schindler's List actually happened. That makes them much more meaningful to some of us.

You think I'd take this sitting down?

Schindler's List is a great movie which I believe depicts truth.  Likewise The Passion.

I protest.

Recommended text...
The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus
by Lee Strobel

RE:
All they'll see is exactly what circletimessquare said they would: some guy dying horribly for no discernible or meaningful reason.

Valid point.

Recommended text...
Disappointment with God
by Philip Yancey

Oh, and I suppose children can see Hellraiser 4 if their parents make the arrangements.

--
Search the Scriptures
Start with some cheap grace...Got Life?

[ Parent ]

The Case for Christ (none / 0) (#676)
by handslikesnakes on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 01:48:51 PM EST

Somebody left it behind in the break room at work, so I thought I would take a flip through it.

It's a collection of interviews with Christian apologists. Opposing views are never presented, except superficially. The entire book assumes the accuracy of the New Testament as a record of history.

But what really got my goat is that it's written in a very simplistic manner. I guess Lee didn't want to exclude any part of his audience, but I don't really need 3 pages each chapter describing what an interviewee is wearing or what he has on his walls.



[ Parent ]
I thought it was a pretty good book (none / 0) (#712)
by bigchris on Sat May 01, 2004 at 10:53:58 AM EST

Very honestly written! I think that your criticism that he wrote about what the person was wearing and what they were like, then I think that's a bit silly. I think he was trying to introduce the person that he was interviewing, so you can get a better idea of what they're like.

Besides this, Lee Strobel was an atheist before he wrote the book and it was only when his wife became a Christian that he decided to investigate Christian claims. In fact, he did his research for the book to disprove Christianity in order to convince his wife to drop her new found faith.

I don't think the book was wrong to only interview Christians. I mean, what would be the point? Lee Strobel was basically asking the questions from people who are Christians to see if they could answer the tough questions - which they did.

Finally, could you at least point out which parts of the book are wrong? At least then we could have a debate on the subject of the book, not just your initial impressions.

---
I Hate Jesus: -1: Bible thumper
kpaul: YAAT. YHL. HAND. btw, YAHWEH wins ;) [mt]
[ Parent ]

A Suggestion (none / 0) (#623)
by jameth on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 09:36:32 AM EST

Unless the movie took the time out to fully explain the old and new covenants, the history of the preceding prophets, and the explicit meaning of god's sacrifice in giving his only son to save the world, then whatever the villagers may see, they WON'T see the true Christian message.

Try watching a good movie completely out of context and see what you get out of it. I wish I had a good example, but I don't. Just try looking for a foreign film. Or, read an old book that is relevant to the times. As a decent example, read Swift's "A Modest Proposal". See if you catch what he means. Lots of people do so without understanding what was going on at the time because they are not stupid.

The events in Schindler's List actually happened.

You assume Jesus didn't live and die. That is debatable. Assuming he wasn't divine is fine. You'd be wrong, but go right ahead, it's your eternity. However, there is evidence that Jesus did exist. It is possible that the Gospels are just clever fabrications, but they are then very clever fabrications indeed. Most of their facts are exactly correct to the times, as best anyone can tell, and there were several written (not just the usual four) at the time. Writing was a lot less common then, and properly coordinating such a hoax would have been much less likely.

Further, the reality is not what is always so important. A story can be a valid tragedy without reality coming into the picture. It's called fiction.

[ Parent ]

Violent Equivalent? (none / 0) (#625)
by jameth on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 09:44:41 AM EST

(Sorry, hit post too early accidentally)

In any case, cts's point about the gore and violence remains unaddressed.  Why can children see this film and not its equivalent, Hellraiser 4?

First, remember you are arguing against the people who are backing the movie, so you must accept what they believe to be true. If you do not, you are not debating their point, and your argument is irrelevant.

The people who think children can watch The Passion think that it is based on actual events and is an essential portion of our history. Hence, Hellraiser 4 is not is equivalent, a movie about World War II or Vietnam would be a lot closer. And, guess what, I think kids should be able to watch realistic movies about real wars.

[ Parent ]

Well... (none / 0) (#711)
by bigchris on Sat May 01, 2004 at 10:45:50 AM EST

... you could argue that a large amount of the movie "The Passion of the Christ" actually happened also.

---
I Hate Jesus: -1: Bible thumper
kpaul: YAAT. YHL. HAND. btw, YAHWEH wins ;) [mt]
[ Parent ]
Wow, I actually feel bad (none / 3) (#553)
by aphex on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 02:11:26 PM EST

that i agreed with most of your article. I read your article and thought that it was pretty much on track, I felt a bit sorry for you that you paid to see a snuff film, but then I saw how many times you had obsessively replied to this thread. A quick grep of the comments shows that you replied 64 fucking times as of my post. Fuck man, go get a life, get some pussy, for fuck sake do something other than obsesse about your fucking post on K5.

i do it at work (none / 1) (#567)
by circletimessquare on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 11:47:07 PM EST

beats working

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
I note you have not yet published a story on K5 (none / 0) (#691)
by harrystottle on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 06:12:50 PM EST

wait till you have. You'll be just as obsessed about how people react to it.

Mostly harmless
[ Parent ]
Fantastic piece. (none / 2) (#555)
by waxmop on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 03:56:22 PM EST

This is the best commentary on The Passion that I've seen anywhere. Well, maybe the South Park episode where Kyle saw the flick was was really good too. Thanks for contributing.
--
Long-term consequences of Bush deficits

Damn! (none / 1) (#690)
by harrystottle on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 06:10:45 PM EST

That (South Park episode) I want to see, but we won't get it over here till next year. Bollocks

Mostly harmless
[ Parent ]
Forget Janet (3.00 / 4) (#560)
by Eight Star on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 08:15:16 PM EST

You don't even need the contrast of the Superbowl fiasco to make this point.

The supposed goal was to make a depiction of the passion that was as realistic as possible, even going so far as to make it in aramaic and latin, but Jesus wasn't naked.

So you can show a man's internal organs partially exposed through his ribcage, but you can't show his penis.

All the more annoying is that 'Jesus is stripped of his garments' is actually one of the stations of the cross. So this artistic choice is inaccurate both in terms of history and faith. We may as well have had him up there in his Moses and Abraham boxers.

get rid of religion (2.75 / 4) (#572)
by avidya on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 04:57:53 AM EST

The problem with religion is it's too complex for most people to fully understand and theres too many different kinds and everyone looks at different religions negatively.

What we need to do is throw out all religion and just follow simple and modern spiritual guidelines.

Something like:
1) Always be peaceful and loving to both others AND yourself
2) Don't take life so seriously. Have as much fun as you can
3) Pay more attention to the latest scientific studies on issues like sexuality. studies that show how sex can be healthy, instead of just blindly believing that its evil.

Nature is more important than religions. If you resist nature you're going to be very repressed and end up doing all kinds of very wrong things. For instance a preist who could simply be having a normal sexual relationship with a woman ends up so repressed that he ends up taking it out on young boys.. What more signs do we need that somethings just not right with certain traditions!

amen! (nt) (none / 0) (#644)
by circletimessquare on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 06:42:46 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
The weight of infinity is like . . . (none / 0) (#695)
by nymia_g on Wed Apr 21, 2004 at 02:58:50 AM EST

Humans will stop thinking about religion when all unknowns have been found. So far, the ratio of known over the unknown is infinity. Therefore, humans will never be free from religion while the human specie exist.

[ Parent ]
My Mom (none / 3) (#587)
by Jed Smith on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 05:58:48 PM EST

...sat through Fight Club but at the mere hint of sexual intercourse, presses Fast Forward. She's been a Christian for years.

Curious.
_____
K5 is dead. Steve Ballmer made the most insightful comment on a story. -- jw32767

FFing Fing scenes (none / 2) (#613)
by slaida1 on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 05:12:22 AM EST

I'm fast forwarding past softcore or flirting scenes also because mainstream/blockbuster/family films' suck at displaying sex as casual freetime act that it is. It looks too clean, romantic and lazy to believe. IIRC, it was Groucho Marx who said "sex is dirty but only if it's done right"

If I want to see sex, I boot up computer and watch xvids.

[ Parent ]

What a trainwreck of a post. (none / 3) (#608)
by turtleshadow on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 12:51:41 AM EST

Your ranting post seems to have gone through the 21st Century world view atom smasher.
Apparent cohesive logical ideas go in but only trace particles on random trajectories come out.
The Passion
"The Passion of the Christ" is an account through the lens of one Director, Mel Gibson.
However I believe your rants and many rants posted here take out of context the entire religious history that the Christ's Passion is a part of and somehow slam it together with a historically insignificant event of one country's popular culture.

For many Catholic Dioceses in the US, they are indeed not on record as recommending the film or not. The main argument I've been able to see against recommendation is that the violence, if taken out of the context of the Christian view of "History of Salvation" is viewed as detrimental and scandalizing to the uninitiated or the marginal believers.

As for painting the work with a broad stroke as a massacre, your a bit off in your numbers.
If your making a cultural reference to a hack and slash film your probably not reaching a good portion of your intended audience, even the Amazonian natives your mentioned probably have never seen the genre and wouldn't get the reference.
But I digress, to all Christians the Passion is the recounting of a deicide
The Romans were frequent to order crucifixion as punishment for rebels and traitors of the state -- non-roman citizens of Course! Historical records recount how Sparticus was executed part of massacre of several thousand rebels. Christ was not executed with persons en-mass (just 1 of 3). Christ was executed as part of:
    A local political conspiracy of the Jewish Pharisees and their cronies as a feeble attempt to suppress new teaching in Judea. Christ's teaching was directly challenging to the oppression caused by the priestly class of Jerusalem. IE the priestly class, which had fallen to pride and other sin, had the lock on all the "elements" necessary for an ordinary Jewish person to practice legitimate faith. The baths used for ritual cleansing were likely in the control of corrupt Pharisees or their families, so to with various goods needed for Passover and Sacrifice in the local markets. This occurred over many generations. The Jewish peoples had many masters but it was their own that was robbing them of hope for salvation under the Jewish Law. It became a convoluted burden to fulfill -- except for the priestly class who interpreted the rules.

    And to fulfill the the pinnacle moment of Salvation History for all educated Christians.

Christ once recognized by the people as a Prophet, perhaps much more, on Palm Sunday was crucified several days later after willingly undergoing execution in order to show his own people their sins and that absolute obedience to the will of their God was something only he could do as he was the "Son of Man." Christ being perfect was thus able, at his willing sacrifice of his mortal life obey the Lord God Almighty.
Only post diecide did his believers truly come to experience him as the promised Messiah Their religious belief is that Christ, actually rose from death. Christ was later witnessed by 100's of persons throughout Jerusalem and Galilee.
Many of these persons are those who then traveled through out the known world to proclaim that human life does not have to end at with mortal death if one believes in Christ, follows the teachings of Christ and thusly becomes Christlike -- A Christian. He is Messiah as he has conquered death in all forms for all time for men thus heaping bounty upon bounty to fulfill The Lord God Almighty's Promise made to Abraham not only would his name would be blessed and his children would be prodigious; from Abraham would come a creation in perfect communion with the Almighty God's will.

Most Christians I've informally interviewed state they never viewed the Passion as a serious, conscious act of Love and Mercy; that Christ had taken upon himself the sin of mankind. This sin is which divides man from the Lord God Almighty, and He has purchased via his death man's eternal life through the second chance as mentioned above -- but as a reminder -- to become Christlike.
This, per Christian doxology, is the completion of the Passover; not from the Jewish people's bondage into freedom, but of Mankind's freedom from death into the promise of eternal life.

Film Violence
If a person unknowingly sees "The Passion of the Christ" or any Christian film of the crucifixion it is not necessarily an error. If Christians were barring admission there would be howls of censorship and conspiracy. Instead they have invited all to come and see and make their own views as you have.
To be honest I've been witness to other forms of film violence, -- in your terms massacres, that offended me much worse than "The Passion of the Christ."
  • Seven
  • Event Horizon
  • Poltergeist I-N

  • The big difference is that "The Passion of the Christ" is an extrapolation of events as chronicled by various sources. These other films are entirely fictitious explorations of debauchery and violence.
    For most of those I've surveyed in my part of the world most will never be able to read accounts of torture and execution of any person the same way after seeing "The Passion of the Christ."
    Most First world residents are so far removed from the atrocities of war, poverty and civil strife so as to forget the world has a few very horrible places where the cruelty of man to his own exists, is very real and very serious.
    It's actually sorrowful that the movie makes many persons ill as true acts of violence are conducted hourly somewhere in the world that is more horrific, take for instance Rwanda

    America and Nudity
    Americans, especially those I have the pleasure to be around are extremely sensitive to nudity as nudity is viewed as a very personal space issue.
    Many of my friends maintain a practiced 3 foot of personal zone. Unexpected visual nudity or audio forms of the sounds of lovemaking is a breach of that privacy zone.

    The fact to the shear reaction to the breast of one Janet Jackson was only, as many persons pointed out in this thread, due to the fact it was in prime time which Americans consider scacrosanct since the advent of Television. Prime time T.V. doesn't violate anyones privacy zone, thats the social contract.

    It will likely never be known if it was a stunt or not. In any case the shock value of millions of boys and girls seeing it on the Superbowl was big.
    For many it shows just how far the cult of celebrity is willing to go and many Americans now are reacting to that cult of celebrity by asserting their own values.
    What should be a dialog, has turned into shouting match but luckily as long as its not violent or somehow politically lopsided, not he exact intention of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights but is likely the first shot in a new wave of person's voicing their belief systems.

    In conclusion I will easily admit I enjoyed and was touched by "The Passion of the Christ".
    I admit its is as close to cinegraphic masterpiece my generation will see.
    The films framing, color, tone, pacing, reliance on the actors ability to portray human emotion and not crutching on dialog were quite excellent compared to most the tripe audiences get today out of American film makers.

    Nice troll..... (none / 1) (#616)
    by Nursie on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 06:21:26 AM EST

    Or is it just a rant? Not sure, but both usually display the smnall midedness and inconsistency of your argument here. Lets have a look:

    I believe your rants and many rants posted here take out of context the entire religious history that the Christ's Passion is a part of
    Unless I was reading a different article to you, this is one of the points it makes, that the passion is a violent film that does not give the full picture, such that it appears to anyone who does not already have a full understanding of christianity simply to be 2 hours of pain and torture.
    and somehow slam it together with a historically insignificant event of one country's popular culture.
    No, this is an essay on that culture, such that the contrast between the two events is not only relevant to the subject of the essay but it the subject of the essay itself. Did you read the article? or just assume it was an atheistic anti-Passion rant? Whilst Cts puts a lot of anti-passion feeling in there, the very essesnce of the article (IMHO) is the question "why is it acceptable to have a film showing the torture and death of a man in great detail, yet a single breast outrages half the nation?"
    For many Catholic Dioceses in the US, they are indeed not on record as recommending the film or not. The main argument I've been able to see against recommendation is that the violence, if taken out of the context of the Christian view of "History of Salvation" is viewed as detrimental and scandalizing to the uninitiated or the marginal believers.
    That seems fair enough. I think "The Passion" will ultimately put a lot of children off the christian faith, which I kinda like. if we're really lucky, "the Passion" will alienate a whole generation and deal christianity a mortal blow.
    As for painting the work with a broad stroke as a massacre.....
    Ever heard of parody? satire? Comic exaggeration? "The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre" is a fabulously funny description of "The Passion", as it puts across the religious angle and the idea of a gore-fest, whilst being not entirely serious.
    The Romans were frequent to order crucifixion as punishment for rebels and traitors of the state -- non-roman citizens of Course!
    Got a source for this? I was under the impression that they crucified all sorts of murderers and serious criminals, roman or not. usually the upper classes would be given the chance to take their own lives first and avoid the suffereing, but I don't think crucifiction was reserved for non-citizens.
    Christ was executed as part of:
    A local political conspiracy of the Jewish Pharisees and their cronies as a feeble attempt to suppress new teaching in Judea.
    One might well ask what relevance it has to us then, if he came down to fix a local conspiracy? But I'm being flippant. So did Christ die to save us from our sins, or did he die to bring an end to things like this conspiracy you mention? To shame people into seeing that they killed him by their conspiratorial avarice and power hunger and so change their ways? Or is it now alright to do these things because Jesus saved us? If not then what was the point of his sacrifice? what's it saving us from if we have to change our actions as well?
    Eeek, sorry, wandered off the point there....

    back to it, though I'll ignore all the biblical prophesy for now, as I don't believe in that book as a literal history of the world myself.
    If a person unknowingly sees "The Passion of the Christ" or any Christian film of the crucifixion it is not necessarily an error.
    Have you asked them? A lot of people feel quite offended by the level of violence (reading the story and comments here reveals that.
    If Christians were barring admission there would be howls of censorship and conspiracy.
    Yes, that would be the truth too. What christians are doing that we think is wrong is taking children to see the film and exposing them to horrendous violence.
    To be honest I've been witness to other forms of film violence, -- in your terms massacres, that offended me much worse than "The Passion of the Christ."
    • Seven
    • Event Horizon
    • Poltergeist I-N
    The big difference is that "The Passion of the Christ" is an extrapolation of events...
    No. The big difference is that none of these is sold as either "Suitable for all the family", "A must see for any good christian person" or "Fun for all ages". Instead they are billed as adult features (which is what they are) and are supposed to be viewed by adults that want to see that sort of film. Personally I like the first two choices you had there. Se7en was well made and extremely shocking, and Event Horizon was a cool sci-fi film with lots of jumpy moments and some out and out horror. Good films. Not something I'd show a twelve year old in case they had nightmares.
    For most of those I've surveyed in my part of the world most will never be able to read accounts of torture and execution of any person the same way after seeing "The Passion of the Christ." Most First world residents are so far removed from the atrocities of war....
    I actually agree with you here, but I think it's terrible that it takes such a spectacle as this to wake people up to the situation outside of america. Too much news coverage sponsored by the disney coporation. Personally I put this down to the isolkationism that still occurs in the USA. As a european I'm amazed that about 90% of any news program (even the longer and more serious programs) in the US is dedicated to things inside the bordersd of your own country. and then the other 10% is about american corporate interests abroad. No foreign politics, conflict or just news. Weird and scary.

    Many of my friends maintain a practiced 3 foot of personal zone.
    I'm sorry, I have to resort to playground insults here, and I mean nothing against the homosexual community when I say this, but that is just totally gay dude. Also you say unexpected visual nudity violates that space, shall we make a special blacked out six foot diameter sphere for you and your friends to wear? Then no-one could violate your space and you wouldn't have to see anything.

    Ever taken a train or a coach? What happens when you and your buddies sit on the couch watching the game? Ever been go see a movie at the cinema?
    This is beyond my comprehension.

    Conclusion Most of the american film output is tripe. The passion is probably a lot better than that, as it was made by someone who believed in it, and wasn't looking for a quick buck. This doesn't mean it was the greatest film ever. Someone care to compare it to "Apocalypse Now"?
    Also you missed the point of the orignal essay and are totally gay. Bye now!

    Meta Sigs suck.

    [ Parent ]
    snore... (nt) (none / 0) (#685)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 04:05:22 PM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    Goes back to Salem (none / 2) (#612)
    by Gandalf04 on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 05:00:01 AM EST

    Personally, I don't nesc. blame the Christians (or at least not the belief system). The violence = good, nudity/sex = bad dichotomy seems to arise way back with the original founders of Christian thought in the new world: the Puritians.

    Salem? Mass purging of the "savages"? Yet heaven forbid if even the skin of women's ankles were seen in public!

    I'm moving to Europe... where violence = bad, sex = good.

    PS. I was an evangelical baptist for 20 of my 23 years... so take that as you will.

    Who's Jenna Jameson? (none / 2) (#651)
    by OldCoder on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 09:57:55 PM EST

    1. Brilliant title, but you might possibly be doing an injustice to the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, one way or the other...

    2. Listen, lots of children in the southern US grew up watching animals being slaughtered and Negroes being lynched and it didn't do them any harm! Oh wait...

    3. On the serious side, sexual display generates stronger and often more unpleansant emotions in most people than violent display. Especially if you're a child. And so those same most people figure that sexual display will have a stronger impact on behavior than will violent display. Children react very negatively to sexual scenes as being yucky in a possibly natural reaction. It's not necessarily the result of "Repressive" environments.

    4. Visual display of material isn't just more impactful than a textual description, it's also different. And people often just don't get that. So if it's okay for a kid to read about the cruelties in the Bible, they reason that it's still holy and okay to see that acted out. Of course, some might assume that any injuries sustained by watching a holy atrocity will be miraculously healed, despite the lack of any scriptural support for such a notion. And movies can be much more gross and impactful than the ancient passion plays, which had no special effects departments nor squirting blood et cetera. In other words its partially a simple mistake. Don't be so astonished at widespread bad judgement. Common sense ain't that common.

    5. Am I supposed to know who Jenna Jameson is? I confess I thought for a long time that Jessica Simpson was Bart's sister, so take that into account.

    --
    By reading this signature, you have agreed.
    Copyright © 2003 OldCoder

    Jenna Jameson is a porn star. (none / 0) (#675)
    by handslikesnakes on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 01:30:17 PM EST

    She's has starred in numerous films, including Up and Cummers 11, Where the Boys Aren't 17, Dirty Bob's Xcellent Adventures 35 and Philmore Butts Taking Care of Business.

    [ Parent ]

    use the link in the intro text (none / 0) (#684)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 04:04:42 PM EST

    the link is "pornography" (goes to imdb.com, it's safe)


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    Where is the evidence ? (none / 0) (#715)
    by suquux on Wed Jul 14, 2004 at 09:51:22 PM EST

    3. On the serious side, sexual display generates stronger and often more unpleansant emotions in most people than violent display.

    Any research, results, statistics ?

    Violent programs on television lead to aggressive behavior by children and teenagers who watch those programs.

    The Dangers of Pornography? A Review of the Effects Literature Quote:" Unfortunately, only studies which report significant findings are normally published. As a result, a great number of studies showing no effects, and thus supporting the limited effects model, never make it to public view (Pally, 1994: p. 28)."

    <sarcasm>
    There is good reason to ban breast feeding - this is totally undue visual and - hell - tactile exposure.

    Better yet, we ban children as a result of sex. Let us invent better AIDS to do that. This in the end will stop the debate. </sarcasm>

    CC.
    All that we C or Scheme ...
    [ Parent ]
    the results of a culture (none / 1) (#652)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 09:58:34 PM EST

    this is the human results of a culture that worships violence as sacrifice and views sex as evil:

    http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0404/140559.html

    the hypocrisy of it all


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    use the link in the intro text (none / 0) (#663)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 03:26:54 AM EST

    "pornography" (goes to imdb.com)

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    Welcome to the Third World War (none / 3) (#666)
    by harrystottle on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 09:32:09 AM EST

    You are, of course, completely correct to point out the ludicrous hypocrisy. I view it as a symptom of the socially induced psychosis which is an inevitable consequence of religious indoctrination. I saw it most clearly in the face and mind of a prominent logician in UK politics - a brilliant scholar called Enoch Powell. He was clearly torn between his religious upbringing which forced him to believe one thing and his rigorous training in logic which exposed the nonsense he had been taught. He never reconciled the two during his lifetime and was clearly mentally tortured by the problem.

    Less intelligent believers do not suffer the same stress. They simply modify their view of reality to conform with their beliefs and then attack anyone and anything which confronts them with a challenge to their world view. Thus has it been since the dawn of religion probably more than 20,000 years ago.

    These people are dangerous. In their most extreme form, they fly passenger aircraft into crowded tall buildings. Lower down the scale, they bomb abortion clinics. Still lower, they persecute homosexuals and criminalise sex, drugs and rock n roll.

    Welcome to the Third World War - between, as Bin Laden puts it, the Believers and the Unbelievers.

    Where I disagree with you, however, is that your criticism of the film seems to be based on its attempt to portray the reality of crucifixion. I support that attempt. All previous attempts at displaying Jesus' suffering have made it all seem almost anodyne and relatively painless. Here at last you got a feel for the genuine brutality of the treatment typically meted out to dissidents and criminals at the time. That needed to be shown.

    Where it failed, though, as you alluded to with your imaginary trip to an Amazon village, was in giving any explanation as to why the hero was willing to go through such suffering. As you implied, unless you already knew the full story, it was completely meaningless. I wanted to be given much greater insight into his state of mind and why he thought it was necessary and inevitable for him to submit to that torture. I wanted to feel his belief, his committment. None of that came across, and that, to my mind was the films greatest failure.



    Mostly harmless
    heh (none / 0) (#682)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 04:02:27 PM EST

    you are post #666 on this thread

    clearly, you work for the antichrist LOL ;-P


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    I wouldn't have mentioned it (none / 1) (#688)
    by harrystottle on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 05:48:51 PM EST

    Its a tough job, bur someone had to do it!

    Mostly harmless
    [ Parent ]
    About the name (none / 0) (#667)
    by ColPanic on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 09:41:43 AM EST

    Why is it called "The Passion of the Christ" instead of just "The Passion of Christ"?

    I'm not a native speaker of English, but it seems to me that the second form has a nicer ring to it.

    Not a proper name (none / 0) (#669)
    by spakka on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 11:16:26 AM EST

    'Christ' is a title, meaning 'anointed one'.

    [ Parent ]
    then why don't people say (none / 0) (#672)
    by Nigga on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 12:38:55 PM EST

    "Jesus the christ"? instead of "jesus christ" It seems as though it has become a poper name over time.

    --------
    The fuck happened to Nigga?
    [ Parent ]

    Because it's shorter? (none / 1) (#673)
    by spakka on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 01:06:35 PM EST

    There are secular examples where the 'the' is often omitted, like Rupert Bear and Robert Bruce.

    I agree with the OP that 'the Christ' here sounds stilted. I guess it's just a pompous Christian affectation. You see them do something similar when they write words like 'Truth' and 'Infinite' with an initial capital. It helps to add gravitas to their bleating.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually, it's as a position (none