I just watched The Passion of the Christ

[WLKjr]

ask me anything.

[Infomaniac]

1. I haven't seen it yet.

After 12 years of Catholic school, I knew the ending. I hate going to movies where I know the ending.;)

[Kurt Remarque]

6. you are apparently unfamiliar with jesus' rescue by the smurfs

[smirkymonkey]

10. LOL! I thought it was the underpants gnomes.

...or maybe I dreamt that.

[Infomaniac]

16. LOL

There are no garden gnomes in Catholicism. Absolutely none. Of this, I am quite sure even though it's been decades since I last went to Mass. There is the Easter Bunny though who played a major role in the resurrection.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

85. They didn't use underpants at that time. Why should they be there? (nt)

[smirkymonkey]

101. That's WHY they didn't have underpants.

The gnomes kept stealing them.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

115. Whoa. I think you're on to something. (nt)

[MidwestTransplant]

37. Those were no smurfs, they were Bush, Cheney, Zell and Ashcroft.

[Bridget Burke]

69. That part will be in the Extended Edition

Expected out this Christmas!

[WLKjr]

18. I did too

Just had to see what all the hoopla was about.

I saw the same thing my mother has told me over the years. So I wasn't shocked by the movie and how it was portrayed.

[Zeke]

43. ?????????????

Well, how does it end?

Does boy get girl in classic cliche'
or does moose and squirrel finaly get it in end?

[Gracie43]

141. Soiler

JC and John drive a ragtop over a clift.

[Fla Dem]

75. Just watched it on DVD. It was a 2 hours of gore. Gibson's specialty,

Gibson may have had an ulterior motive for making the film...present his view of Christ's betrayal, suffering and Crucifixion, but for me the message was lost in the gore. Gibson has a fixation for gore and mayhem. Both Braveheart and The Patriot were exceedingly gory.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

166. So, back then nobody bled when they were beaten or stabbed?....

I mean, if the Swifties can state that Kerry didn't bleed when he was wounded, you can certainly state that nobody actually bled back in the days of the Roman Empire! Crucifixions and blood? No way!

And I bet that no matter how many times anyone was hacked with a two-handed sword, or shot with arrows, they never bled! And I bet being drawn-and-quartered only required a bandaid...or an Ace bandage at the most!

And those Patriots! Imagine trying to sell anyone on the idea that anyone stabbed during a bayonet attack actually bled in copious amounts!

Wow, you may be on to something really major! You should write a book about your theories...it should sell like hotcakes, don't you think?

[Fla Dem]

232. Not sure why you replied with sarcasm

I said nothing about tortured, wounded, and slain humans not bleeding. My point was that Mr. Gibson's focuses excessively on gore. IMHO it distracted from the message of the film.

[pnb]

233. The gore WAS part of the message of the film

His point was to really drive home to people how much Jesus suffered. We've all heard the stories...he thought actually SHOWING it would make it seem more real to people.

[Zhade]

275. At the expense of Christ's teachings, which are FAR more important?

Hell, I'm not even a Christian and I know his message is the most important part of his life.

TPOTC looks like a snuff film - which is why I'd never subject myself to it. Gibson shouldn't try to guilt people into believing his (Opus Dei) beliefs, he should portray Jesus' awesome teachings.

</rant>

[jackieforthedems]

234. Planning To Watch It Sometime This Week

My favorite movie about Jesus is "Jesus Of Nazareth". I don't know how "Passion Of The Christ" will compare to that, but maybe Gibson just felt that in this day and age of everything extreme, that it had to be the way he portrayed it (gory, etc...) in order to reach people nowadays?!

[UpsideDownFlag]

2. what'd ya think?

[WLKjr]

9. Well...

it didn't shock me really. I was told this many times by my mother growing up who actually went to bible college. So in a way, seeing the movie didn't move me any more than what I was told.

hard to explain I guess.

[silverlib]

3. Who killed Jesus?

I was always taught that no one did - that he lived.

[DrWeird]

12. No, no. Frodo lives.

Jesus saves. We were up by only a single run, he got put in top of the eighth. Thank god he played in the NL. That sacrifice bunt really saved our souls.
I made fifty bucks off the game.

thank ya, Jesus.

[WLKjr]

13. No Human Did

I believe this was a good example of what pure evil looks like. It's not a person or place or thing. It's there if you know what I mean.

it's everywhere in this movie, just in graphic form.

[pa28]

44. So true

Even in day-to-day life you can walk into a room or a restaurant and see it. It can be something as simple as a look or a certain type of laugh and you just know you are in the presence of evil. Gibson wove it into one of the central themes of the movie - it was good work.

[Cronus Protagonist]

59. Hahahahaa!

You can 'see' evil? I hope you're never armed because you must be a danger to society.

Lick Laura's Bush - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - FUCK BUSH
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[pa28]

60. :)

:)

[WLKjr]

86. I'm not talking in a literal sense there Cronus

geesh.

The feeling I guess is best described by me as when I was protesting bush here in Ohio and watched all those bush supporters acting the way they did towards me and then having that damned bus come within 20 ft of me......I can't describe the feeling but you know what it is when it's there.

[Cronus Protagonist]

119. So you had a feeling... maybe it was gas

Or perhaps an allergy.

Lick Laura's Bush - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - FUCK BUSH
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[WLKjr]

181. I give up

:D, it's a wierd feeling, but certainly not as painful and smelly as having a gas attack.....lol.

oh well on to bigger and better things.

[Cronus Protagonist]

186. I have feelings too, but I don't attribute them to invisible emanatiions

... that come from other people when I look at them. Usually, for me at least, it's gas or a bad stomach from some dodgy shellfish. It just seems a little wacky, to attribute feelings to invisible non-physical, psychic emanations or radiations from others. That's cool, though. I'm a little eccentric myself, I just don't live in "fantasyland".

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[liberalpress]

230. We can all see evil...

...look toward 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

[0007]

109. cough cough - according to your standards?

[Lovecrafty]

4. Was it really "The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre"?!!

[WLKjr]

17. It was gruesome

but this is the dark ages or something. This kind of tourture was commonn place.

[halfastro]

235. Gratuitous Violence

I never thought I'd see anything more violent than "Resevoir Dogs". But "The Passion of the Christ" was indeed more violent. I'm an atheist so I don't get all welled up like some, but I thought the movie was well done and not anti-semitic as some implied.

[xxqqqzme]

5. why?

n/t

[WLKjr]

24. My mom got it

was telling me about it and would watch it with me to explain things while it was playing.

What can I say? I am a liberal who has a very curious critical thinking mind that strives for information and an opportunity to learn anything.

[kwolf68]

7. So what did you think

I saw nothing innacurate about it.

It wasn't a "good movie" per se...It simply detailed the brutality that Christ went thru.

Whether or not he was our savior or not isn't relevant...the fact of the matter is he DID walk the earth, HE WAS a great man, and HE DID go thru a torture no man should ever have to go thru.

I am a devout Christian and a leftist and I hold my tongue when athiests mock Christianity. Seeing that movie will move you no matter your religion, because of the man Christ was.

As far as I am concerned even if he isn't the messiah Ill still take my chances with him. If at the end we are just the outcome of some primordial soup and there is no heaven big fucking deal Im dead anyway....but knowing I lived my life with the teachings and life of Christ in mind will make me a better person.

I liked this movie. It was NOT propapaganda. Nearly everything is documented in the bible...Gibson took some liberties with a couple things...but for the most part this movie was bibilically accurate.

[mitchum]

19. Pascal's Wager...

there's nothing wrong with that

[kwolf68]

22. What does that mean

[mitchum]

31. If you believe and He does exist, you have gained everything...

If you believe and He doesn't exist, you have still lived a virtuous life (treating others kindly, etc...)
That's my (possibly) simplistic reading of old Blaise :)

[kwolf68]

36. Dude

He DID exist.

This is proven. We KNOW Jesus walked earth. The debate surrounds around whether he was the way to God (if there is a god).

I do believe. I have to believe....

But still, even if he was just some crazy guy with these weird ideas like loving your enemy, bringing peace to the world, curing the sick, feeding the hungry...ya know what...Ill still worship him.

I can find no example of a greater man. Many of us worship Kennedy, King, Ghandi, etc....all incredible men. Even that...NONE of them can hold a candle to Jesus Christ.

[Cronus Protagonist]

39. What about The Buddha?

Siddhartha - what an excellent example his life was.

Or perhaps more loved than any other person to walk the earth, Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu (the devotional personification of Krsna), who spent his entire life chanting the maha mantra and spreading love across the world? He was so exalted that a human can't even imitate, or be like him, as it's impossible for a human to attain such godhead - all one can do is follow, not try to imitate Caitanya.

Lick Laura's Bush - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - FUCK BUSH
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[kwolf68]

42. Yes

When Buddha was executed did he plead for mercy for those who executed him?

To compare Buddha to Jesus is a joke no offense.

Buddha made the quote "You, yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe, deserve your love and affection."---this is pure selfishness.

I know Buddha had some good quotes, but NOTHING Jesus said was EVER grounded in selfishness. This quote by Buddha is pure selfihsness, though there may be an element of truth in it.

Jesus was the most selfless man who walked the earth in my opinion. THAT IS MY OPINION. If you think Buddha or whoever is just as great fine...go worship them...or don't.

[Cronus Protagonist]

49. What you said wasn't funny at all, just offensive

That says more about you than the great man you look so haughty upon.

And what about Caitanya? What's your erudite opinion of him? Did his miracles measure up to your guy's miracles, or are you going to argue that Caitanya's were second-rate?

Lick Laura's Bush - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - FUCK BUSH
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[kwolf68]

52. If you wish

To worship Caitanya then do so.

Why do you chose to mock those who worship Christ?

Had a thread been started that said "I worship...." I would have not responded.

However, your agenda appears to be more anti-Christian than anything and your promotion of Caitanya or Buddha only serves to advance your agenda.

I do not know of any person who ever lived who begged for mercy of his executioners. DO YOU FUCKING know of anyone?

I can't comprehend this. This has been well-documented. We have "documented" evidence from 4.6 billion years ago that I am inclined to believe....therefore I will believe certain events that happend over 2k years ago.

[Cronus Protagonist]

55. Here's what you said:

"I can find no example of a greater man. Many of us worship Kennedy, King, Ghandi, etc....all incredible men. Even that...NONE of them can hold a candle to Jesus Christ."

I was simply offering you some alternatives, since you said that even if Jesus was a fraud, and not the son of God, you would still follow him for being such a great man.

I think Caitanya could easily stand with Jesus, holding a candle in each hand in fact, and so, if Jesus is a fraud, or even if he's not, perhaps he's not the only great man whose life you could worship.

I'm surprised your entire faith in Jesus hinges on that one point. You didn't make that clear at the start, instead, you suggested your faith is up for grabs if one could find someone better than Jesus. (And even in your angry shout in the post above, you call for an alternative once more, only this time significantly combative and defensively)

I simply offered a few alternatives. Unfortunately, none of them were unlawful in their day and were executed so, if your sole criteria for worshipability is that your deity has to have been executed and called for mercy on his executioners (who were, after all, simply following the law of the land), then you are sure to have few challengers simply because so few great spiritual leaders were ever formally executed like Jesus was, their usual bent being one of sowing love and devotion.

[skygazer]

82. Mock?

The poster didn't mock you or anyone who worships Christ. He/she simply listed others.

If you don't like it when people talk badly about Christians, maybe you should get over that arrogant "my god is better than your god" shit. Because that's the biggest point against you people.

[greenohio]

102. Anti-Christian Attitude

There is definitely a sense of anti-Christian bigotry on these boards as exemplified by this thread. It is sad.

[DrWeird]

104. Where? Point it out.

I see people mocking a movie, which is fine. And I see people questioning the existence of Jesus.

Now, you're not the first person to cry anti-christian bigotry. And why I ask them why, they say things like questioning the existence of Jesus is anti-christian bigotry.

So, where's this anti-christian bigotry? Point it out.

[greenohio]

106. Print up the thread and take it to a Christian friend...

and tell them that this is the discussion by the Democratic movement on the web and then check back in here. If you cannot see the insensitivity to Christianity on this thread, your Christian friend will help you. I assume you will defend post 33 as well.

[DrWeird]

107. Post #33? That's the big case of anti-christian bigotry?

First off, it's a joke. And it's not mocking christians, or christianity, or christ. It's mocking a movie, and it's an obvious reference to the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ" which has a dream sequence where Christ escapes and "fucks the prostitute." That's also a common Christian legend.

So surely you can point out "anti-christian bigotry" better then that.

Or maybe somebody's got a martyr complex, no pun intended.

[greenohio]

110. Tell you what...

Lets work on this together. But before we begin this exercise, please give me the concise DrWierd definition of bigotry. And we'll go from there.

I would appreciate you printing up the thread and sharing it with Christian Democrats and getting their opinion. You seem to be quite proud of this thread. There should be no risk in sharing the thread. The whole world can see it.

[DrWeird]

112. Well, I'm no Webster...

but I thought it had something to do with believing a group of people different then your own (e.g. gender, race, religion, orientation, etc.) is by nature inferior.

What bigotry is not is making fun of a shallow movie about an alledgedly historic figure.

I, for example, can express my opinion that Jesus was a homosexual. In fact, I think it's pretty obvious, assuming he existed, of course. That in no way suggests that Christianity or Christians are inferior.

[greenohio]

114. What about making fun the the allegedly historic figure?

If someone was to make fun of Jesus, who some believe to be God, incarnate, would that be bigotry? Or is he open season because he is allegedly historic?

And of the people defending the figure would:
1)statements implying/stating they are stupid apply?
2)statements implying/stating they are oversensitive apply?

I need a little more detail to meet your criteria.

[Cronus Protagonist]

122. Bait and switch

Why are you changing the conversation and reframing your referents?

If Jesus existed, and there is considerable doubt about that among scholars, offering a suggestion that he may have been a closeted homosexual is not bigotry. In fact, many scholars of the time period say that there is some indications that Paul and Jesus were homosexual lovers.

I see no problem, or bigotry, with that at all, because there is nothing at all wrong with being homosexual. And it would be perfectly understandable if Jesus were gay, that he would have been in the closet and the people who otherwise admired him would hide that fact due to their own bigotry against homosexuals, which still exists today and is primarily prevalent among Jesus's most fervent followers.

If Jesus were alive today, I would entreat of Him to save me from his followers, and if the scriptures and historical record is accurate, I have no doubt that He would do that.

Lick Laura's Bush - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - FUCK BUSH
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[PissedOffPollyana]

204. Just a little clarification...

You are correct in saying that many scholars have doubted the physical existence of Jesus (Yeshua). There are plenty of contemporary historians of the time/region yet no 'of the moment' mentions of something/someone that -if recorded correctly in the gospels-would have been rather significant. I have not ever seen a single bit of "documentation" and I've looked a LOT. (Note to potentially offended Christians: The Bible is not documentation; it is a religious text.) Even the Jesus Project was based on supposition based on the gospels, the earliest of which was written probably 60-100 years after the supposed events.

Where it is harder to agree with a cite of "many scholars" is the Paul/Jesus theory. Paul (Paul of Tarsus/Saul of Tarshish) was not an actual disciple, rather a man who was inspired by a vision of Jesus he saw on the road to Damascus (I think it was Damascus). I have seen some seedy attempts to do the same with John (apostle, not baptist). I've seen precious few of this, mostly not-so-reputable.

If Jesus were alive today you would more likely have to save him from his own followers, or at least their ministers. His biggest beef was the turning of belief, of faith, into dogma and fund-raising with man-made regulation of minutae. He was not particularly big on much of what comprises most of the religions based on his teachings, if you read the quotations ascribed to him anyway.

Enjoy the cage match, folks.
Mich

[DrWeird]

127. I can make fun of whoever I want to. If Jesus doesn't like it...

he can come down here and complain personally.

If somebody feels that said alleged historical figure is God, and they're insulted when somebody makes fun of him, that's there own fault. But it ain't bigotry.

Is he open season because he is allegedly historic? No. You can make fun of real historic people too. I can make fun of Queen Victoria, that doesn't mean I'm bigoted to the English.

And of the people defending the figure would:
1)statements implying/stating they are stupid apply?

Implying christians are stupid would be bigotry, yes. Implying people who would defend a stupid movie, book, or historical figure would not necessarily be bigotry, as that's a subject of opinion. I happen to beleive that people who enjoyed Alien vs. Predator aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer, if you can my drift.

2)statements implying/stating they are oversensitive apply?

If somebody's crying bigotry where clearly none existed, a statement that they are being oversensitive would not be uncalled for.

[Cronus Protagonist]

120. Awwwww, thanks for defending me,. Dr. Weird

You are perfectly correct, as usual. The "offensive" post was in fact a mixture of humor and the plot line of another movie on the exact same subject - a much more interesting and thought-provoking movie than Mel Gibson's slash-fest.

And the offended party here was offended at me simply listing other people who also performed miracles and led examplary lives, so I doubt that one post is the only thorn in his scalp.

Lick Laura's Bush - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - FUCK BUSH
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[0007]

111. What's sad about it?

[greenohio]

123. There a lot of Christians deciding how to vote this November..

the repukes like to portray us as hostile to Christianity. Freepers love these threads.

[Pax Argent]

136. They also portray us as hostile to our country

due to the fact we question the Republican government and its policies. Unfortunately, one of the duties of true faith is questioning what is is truth versus what the politicians/priests (Pharisees) wish for you to believe is true.

Not everyone has this level of strength. The Rethugs count on this. If the faithful Christians were to actually evaluate Bush's actions in relation to the teachings of Christ, Bush would probably have been impeached somewhere between his lies for running up to the Iraqi War and his third run of tax cuts for the rich. I wouldn't take what you see here to heart, as most of us are just frustrated with those elements of Christianity that are ok with the bombing of innocents in foreign countries and the disenfranchisement of the weakest among us.

I understand your frustration regarding what must be seen as a lack of seriousness in dealing with the central tenets of faith of the Christians, but that, unfortunately, occurs in a group that has no internal connection to maintaining the sanctity of a particular dogma, or maybe interprets it differently than the mainstream. I'm sure Jesus would sympathize with all of us, faithful children and doubting Thomas' alike.

[0007]

137. If they haven't made up their minds yet then they having been

paying attention. Fuck 'em!

[greenohio]

173. Glad you aren't Kerry's campaign strategist

I doubt that plan is a winner.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

179. Too bad. I'm personally getting very tired of having to kiss the butts...

...of every single person claiming to be a Christian just to get their vote in November.

If they don't understand the major issues at this point in time, I doubt seriously that they will ever understand them.

[Djinn]

163. well if they vote according to

who they think shares there religious beliefs I'm not sure how they could decide to align themselves with BUsh (they'd be reading a different Bible to the one I've read and studied) secondly perhaps they should move to a place that wasn't founded on the seperation of church and state and is happy to be a theocracy - I've heard Iran's nice this time of year

[Media_Lies_Daily]

168. The God freepers worship is about two continents away from the God...

...I was taught to worship.

And I couldn't care less what the freepers think on ANY subject, much less this one.

[skygazer]

116. I'm not anti-Christian

People are welcome to believe whatever they want and I respect that. But I also ask that they respect MY beliefs and that rarely happens.

The poster I replied to had taken a perfectly reasonable post that offered Buddha as someone to look up to and turned it into some kind of contest in which Jesus came out as the better man. Is that respect for others' beliefs? Is that bigotry? Or is it only bigotry when it's against Christians?

[DrWeird]

96. There's actual physical evidence the world is 4.6 billion years old.

There's no actual evidence that Jesus existed. Except for some second hand accounts written down several decades after he was supposedly executed.

[greenohio]

140. Sure and bran muffins prevent cancer.

It is amazing how we taking the faceless "scientist" statements as fact on total faith. It used to be eating fat, made you fat...tell that to the millions on Atkins/South Beach losing weight. It used to be the world was going to freeze over. Now we believe it it is warming. Now we know for scientific fact the world is 4.6 billion years old.

Those who stand on science,like it or not, are making a faith statement. We are so arrogant in this day in age that we believe that if a scientific idea is popular enough, it must be true. I'm wondering how many geo-centric theories are going to be debunked in the next century.

As for arguing whether or not Jesus existed...how can one prove that? Prove to me Pharaoh, Napoleon, King Aurthur or George Washington existed. You can't. Sure, show me pictures and tell me stories. Could be all a bunch of lies. So what that the govt wrote it down back then? You telling me today's government is the first one to invent lies?

Everyone works on what they believe to be true. Everyone, like it or not, has faith. People just put their faith in different things.

[DrWeird]

148. Ah, a creationist!

But the world is 4.6 billion years old. The experiments are reproducible and undeniable. Do you really want to argue that? Because you can't win.

Prove that Pharaoh existed? I don't know, maybe you don't know much more about Egyptian history then what you learned in that Disney Moses cartoon, but Pharaoh was a title, not an individual's name.

How do we know the Pharaoh's existed? Contemporary accounts. People wrote things down then, hundreds of scribes, signing thousands of documents, histories, cross-references with other cultures, tombs, that kind of thing. And on top of all that, the Pharaohs' corpses happen to be sitting, preserved, in museums. So that fact that you can go and see them kind of proves that they existed.

Napolean? Same thing. His body, or at least parts there of still exist. Countless contemporary references, histories, portraits, statues, etc.

King Arthur? Kind of funny that you bring it up. Since it's widely known that King Arthur and his Roundtable never existed. There's some evidence that the legends of King Arthur might have been very loosely based on a real celtic warlord. Kind of like the possibility that the legend Jesus was loosely based on a real Judean rabbi. But there's not a lot of evidence for the former and none for the latter.

George Washington? Same as Napoleon.

[Cronus Protagonist]

153. Nice reality check, Dr. Weird

:)

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[DrWeird]

155. Thanks.

But I can't take credit. King Arthur? Jesus Christ!

[greenohio]

180. Sorry, not a creationist...

No, I do not believe in creation as described in the Bible. Here's one for you...I don't claim to know how old the world is. Apparently you do. I don't claim to know how it began.

Your world is really going to be rocked when the scientists come out and say, oops, the world is really only 4.5 or 3.5 or 7.2 billion years old aren't you? (but the experiments, they were reproducible and undeniable) I'd like to learn, how do you reproduce an experiment that undeniably tells how old the world is? Why do you believe this experiment is right? You know there were undeniable experiments that proved the earth was at the center of the universe, bran muffins stopped cancer, the earth is cooling and the atom is as small as it gets. Have you researched it, or somebody just tell you? Why do you believe them? Did you perform the experiment yourself, or do you just believe it?

So you show me some body...am I'm supposed to believe its Napoleon who did all of the things they say he did? The fact of the matter is, we never met the guy, yet we both believe he existed. And if I am determined to believe he was a hoax, there is nothing that can't be ignored, short of meeting the guy...which can't happen cause he's dead. Neither of us have seen the evidence, or researched it or looked for the body but we both believe he actually walked and talked and battled. I've seen pictures put up in a museum, but anybody could have put them up there meaning anything. Proving that certain events happened in history to a skeptic is not possible without a time machine.

You may believe that your world is just facts and scientific reality when really it is just what you choose to believe. Which is fine, you really have no choice. Just realize that, and be sensitive to what others choose to believe.

[Cronus Protagonist]

182. So you're a doubting Thomas regarding science

And blindly faithful regarding religion. Personally, I'm a doubting Thomas on both topics. I prefer to keep my options open as opposed to closing them with a fantastic belief structure. It's good to have a hobby, I suppose, so good luck to you with it.


http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[greenohio]

189. Now that is funny. I like that.

I guess I am a "Doubting Thomas" regarding science...thought there are many things I believe based on science. I also have doubts regarding Christianity. I too prefer to keep my options open. One thing I do believe, everyone makes choices as to where they place their faith, some just don't realize they're doing it.

[Cronus Protagonist]

190. Stop it! You're beginning to make sense.

I agree that science is a religion, but I wouldn't stop there, as society is a religion, nationality is a religion, race is a religion, government is a religion, the corporation is a religion, law is a religion, history is a religion, and this is so with each and every one of our causa sui projects.

I just prefer to make up my own.

[Sterling]

278. The great thing about science VS religion is that in science

You are allowed to admit you were wrong or acknowledge a new "truth" based on reality.

[DrWeird]

187. Uranium/ lead dating.

You can go out on the oldest portions of the world's surface, like north eastern Canada, and Australia, and find there sedimentary rocks in which are the world's oldest minerals. You can stick these in a mass spectrometer to get a uranium/lead ratio to accurately date said minerals at, roughly 4.55 billion years old, plus or minus 1%, so that's a lower limit. You can test meteorites the same way, they've drifted undisturbed since the Earth and solar system were formed, and lo and behold they're 4.6 billion years old.

So if I may anticipate your next argument: but you don't know if those radiometric dating techniques are accurate! You're using faith! Indeed I am not. If I question the accuracy of radiometric dating, all I have to do is reproduce the experiment. Nuclear decay is a very well understood process, as well understood as Newtonian motion. Furthermore, they can be cross referenced and calibrated with other dating techniques, such as dendrochronology, the historical record, natural reactors, etc.

I don't believe in Napoleon because somebody told me. I believe because there is a complete historical record. I can go to museums and read contemporary accounts written by Napoleon's friend, enemies, and clerks. I can go to the battlefields and with a metal detector dig up musketballs, or various artefacts with Napolean's image and name engraved on them. I haven't done this, but the point is, I can.

You can't do that with Jesus. There's absolutely no evidence that he existed. Nobody claims that they have evidence that Jesus existed, and if they do, and it's investigated, it's always shown fraudulent.

[greenohio]

193. Here we go...

How does one know they are at oldest parts of the earth's surface is. Were you there? Got any poloroids? Did they research every part of the Earth's surface to determine the oldest? How'd they do that? What if it's like some planets where every so many billion years the outer shell shatters and then drops in to the magma. It cools and then shatters again. Then which part's the oldest? These minerals have to formed somehow. Couldn't that process have continued after the birth of the Earth? Can you say for certain that this uranium/lead ratio...cannot be affected by anything? 4.6 billion years is a long time. Are you certain nothing could have interfered with the decay, or the ratio during that time? How do you know the uranium or lead didn't get added later?

"they've drifted undisturbed since the Earth and solar system were formed"

Really you were there? Take any pictures? Any documents to support that? What if they were disturbed, would it mess up any fancy calculations?

"If I question the accuracy of radiometric dating, all I have to do is reproduce the experiment."

Its just amazes me. NASA makes prediction after prediction about the environment of planets they go to explore based on the logic and science available. When they get there they discover they were wrong on some of these. They openly admit this and restate. This is part of the scientific process.

Unfortunately this cannot be done for the age of Earth question. We can't visit a planet to prove the age of the Earth...and no one was there with a timer to time it for us. So whatever we figure out, we just have to take on faith. You may be right, the earth is 4.6 billion years old. But there are many assumptions and a lot of time to reach that conclsion. Don't be surprised if it is recalculated sometime in the future.

As for Napolean:
"I haven't done this, but the point is, I can."
No you believe you can. Until you do, you really don't know. It is just something you believe. Even then, you didn't meet the guy or see him at Waterloo... you sure he was there? So you have a bunch a papers, any body could have forged those back then and made the guy up.

"There's absolutely no evidence that he existed."
Except that whole Bible thing. One of the most published books of all time. I know, I know, it can't be considered historical record because it wasn't official records. Only governments record the objective truth. So share your theory on how the Christian church got here. I'm fascinated to hear. We know the church is here. I hope we can agree on that. It got here somehow. Prove your theory.

I know this is hard for you, but unless you saw it yourself, you are taking it on faith. There are things you just believe because of the authority of the one telling you, or because it is popular. I'm the same way. Just don't think your faith is any better than anyone else's.

[PissedOffPollyana]

206. Y'know, I've extended a lot of lattitude on this subject...

... but this is a bit over the top of even my patience.

GreenOhio :" "There's absolutely no evidence that he existed."
Except that whole Bible thing. One of the most published books of all time. I know, I know, it can't be considered historical record because it wasn't official records. Only governments record the objective truth. So share your theory on how the Christian church got here. I'm fascinated to hear. We know the church is here. I hope we can agree on that. It got here somehow. Prove your theory."

Other historic figures, whether they be religious reformers or political figures, can be "documented" by all manner of contemporary sources. Historians travelled, they talked with people as events were unfolding. Countless witnesses such as this create HISTORY. Thus, we have "documentation". Without that, it's a faith thing, not an accepted reality.

That doesn't even get into the ridiculously fanciful notion that a piece of passable fiction riddled with inconsistencies is "infallible" and should be considered historic record.

Besides, we know how the church began; there actually is documentation of that and plenty of it. There didn't need to be a "Christ" (another word for messiah/savior - sort of like his predecessor the Krishna) for their to be a Christianity. In those days, there were plenty of resurrection messiah cults based on fictional heroes of folk legend; why not another? Here's a useful link with some of those "facts of Jesus' life " cribbed from other religious figures/godheads.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa.htm

There are some other great sources of information about the search for evidence of a historic Jesus (Yeshua), which has been rather exhaustive. It puzzles me why it can't just be about accepting this "person" as the personification of an ideal. Couldn't the story of the man who spoke in parables be a parable itself?
... And would that be so bad?

Just a thought from a friendly, neighborhood atheist.

[greenohio]

210. Well, enjoy your bran muffins...

and meditation over Popular Science mag.

Some historians say that the proof that Alexander the Great existed can be placed on four sheets of paper. BTW, that is smaller than one gospel account. There is a place named after him, but then, there is an entire church founded after Jesus. Your burden of proof is inconsistent, especially since you don't know how many documents are eyewitness accounts to the existence of Alexander the Great, Aristotle or Plato or just about any other figure dating back that far. Even with documents, you cannot scientifically prove that a person existed who did what the stories say he/she did. Any more than you can prove one didn't exist. But you're soooo scientific.

Tell me about the reproducible experiments that prove Jesus didn't exist.

Could it be that you actually don't know, and I actually don't know?

We both believe as we want. You have trouble admitting that you believe anything, when in fact, you believe what you read, are told, and see on TV. Just like all of us. Face it dude, you're religious. You take things on faith, like the rest of the planet.

Just a thought from your equal opportunity skeptic, rather than just an anti-Christian one.

[DrWeird]

212. Well, there are the writings of Ptolemy.

He was a contemporary of Alexander, in case you were unawares. And he wrote stuff down. And it's back up by DNA evidence. Which shows that about 2,300 years ago (you can do genetic dating now, a little bit like radiometric dating, in case you were unawares) that a relatively small group of greeks moved through Turkey, invaded Persia, Egypt, and getting all the way to India.

"Tell me about the reproducible experiments that prove Jesus didn't exist."

I can't prove that Jesus didn't exist. I can't prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist either. Doesn't mean I'm about to believe in him.

"Just a thought from your equal opportunity skeptic, rather than just an anti-Christian one."

If you're a skeptic how come you're running around crying anti-christianism when there isn't any?

[greenohio]

217. You got one guy, only 3 more left.

Actually Ptolmey talks about how the gods sent snakes to guide Alexander through his travels. Sounds like a parable to me dude. Sure he wasn't fiction? Also many believe Ptolmey not to be an eyewitness account, the burden your "historians" have on the proof for Jesus. Try again. So I guess your back down to zero. Com'on now, be consistent. Scientist are consistent. You do read Popular Science don't you.

[DrWeird]

221. Yes, and Hunter Thompson talks about giant bats...

and manta rays.

Yet Las Vegas is an actual place.

Homer, who may not have actually existed, talks about Cyclopses and evil witches. But thanks to his works we found out that the city of Troy actually exists.

So it's obvious that just because something contains parables, does not mean it's necessarily all parables.

There's plenty of other reasons to believe Alexander the Great existed. Like I said, there's DNA evidence for example.

Popular Science? No, it's pretty dumbed down, and not all that scientific.

And who is it who believes Ptolemy did not witness Alexander? I'd think Alexander's most favorite general would be a valid witness. Are these the same people who don't think George Washington existed?

[greenohio]

223. Didn't you just argue

That the man who spoke in parables, could have been a parable? Good your coming around.

[DrWeird]

240. Umm, no.

Hunter Thompson spoke in some "parables" some facts. We have his writings, he does exist. Ptolemy spoke in some "parables" some facts, and he made some mistakes to boot. We have his writings. We have evidence to back up his claims. We have contemporary coins minted in his image. Jesus himself was a parable, written decades after he was alledgedly killed, and with no evidence to back it up. So there's no more reason to believe in Jesus then in the Cyclops.

Or were you talking about Homer? Good question. There's a bunch of ancient literature, that we have, that's accredited to this guy Homer. Whether or not he existed is unknown. So he's just like Jesus. But I'm not getting upset when somebody cracks jokes about Homer.

So why are you crying anti-christian bigotry when somebody cracks a joke about a guy who might not have existed and you don't feel was worthy of emulation?

[PissedOffPollyana]

241. Ummm... I never said scientific. You did.

There are certain constants in examining human history. One of the highest of these is a reasonable standard of contemporary data. Since you don't seem to grasp what I'm saying, I'll elaborate on this point.

If there exists any of the following, there is actual contemporary data to suggest the viability of that matter of history:

-contemporary writings of historians (Unlike the gospels, contemporary writings are current to the person/event in question. Your "documentation" does not fit this standard, while much of the other historic record you have pooh-poohed does.)

- contemporary government/civil records (Like trial records and official documents of the time in question. These exist for some of the historic figures you list, including **snicker** Pharaoh -Did you have one in mind or the whole chain of dynasties of them?-. BTW, they are still discovering Pharoahs whose reigns were stricken from historic record; however, we have the matter of a massive funerary crypt -former pyramid- and all the records and documents by contemporary scribes to provide insight to correct the historic record.)

- contemporary social record (There are all manner of these. Everything from slaves' letters, public documents of social events like weddings/funerals, family record, medical records, etc. can be utilized to enhance or suggest existence of people, customs, events. These records are generally in support of rather than in lieu of the others but can be invaluable for filling in some of the day-to-day details that would generally not be included in more official sources.)

Do you see a pattern forming here? If the "documentation" is not of the time that person is said to exist, there must be doubt in the veracity of the documentation in question. In particular, writings from adherants to a religious sect dating almost 100 years from the events & life of the subject are no more valid than folk tales collected for the amusement of children.

This standard is consistent with historical & archeological study. It does not change or become flexible to suit the needs of a group of people (or one stubborn person) who think simply because they believe it that it MUST be real.

Oh, and please don't presume to assume what I believe or don't believe. In particular, don't assume I am anti-christian. You're on shaky ground as it is and getting shakier with every dubious assumption. I may be an atheist but have the utmost respect for people of faith, like my brother who is a Traditional Catholic priest (He, by the way, has no problem admitting that there is no proof of Jesus' existence yet also seems to have no problems with accepting history in general and the standards of recording it. His faith is the thing, not the obsessive need to recalibrate the standards of historic record because certain people feel some driving need to foist their religious dogma upon the rest of us as fact.).

Those 4 sheets of paper on Alexander you smirk at? Do you have any idea what they are or what they contain? I'm betting they probably fit the generally accepted standards (which the gospels still don't no matter how hard you wish it) so there goes your latest attempt to rationalize your faith, which is supposed to be blind anyway.

I find it sad that you think of your messiah as comparable to a mere historical figure, somehow in need of proof of existence. I had been taught that seeking physical proof of these matters of faith was a kind of heresy, or at least blasphemy. The whole point is supposed to be believing without the need for evidence. Good luck with that, my seemingly-confused friend.

Your friendly, neighborhood (definitely not a dude) atheist Diva
~Mich

**Add on edit: You seem to equate "historical" with "scientific". Surely, one can use scientific means to back up historic record but it is not based in science per se. That's just the icing.

History is more about understanding the events of the past and learning from them through various records of the time itself. The Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran & the Gnostic gospels found at Nag Hammadi, for instance, open a completely new perspective into the thoughts, beliefs and motivations of the fledgling church. They also contradict the idea of the current incarnation of the Bible as the infallible and complete "document" of Christianity; who decided what was the "Word of God" and what was "heresy"? (A little reading on the Council of Nicea might help.) If you're Christian, the editing of the Bible is your history and one with actual "documentation"; knowing that, how can the Bible you read be considered anything but a dogmatic text conveniently sanitized for your spiritual protection by those who felt they knew better than the original church fathers on matters of faith?

If you really want some historically based insight into the stories of the Bible, ideas that actually have research as their foundation, perhaps a bit of reading of Ahmed Osman would shed some light on how history can be used to form a seemingly logical shell for religious myth and god/messiah-making. His "Out of Egypt" and "Gospel According to Egypt" are fascinating and are backed up by dilligent research into the reigns of Akhenaten (The 1st ruler to enforce monotheism) & Tutankhamun (His murdered/martyred son) which was made possible by new finds of contemporary documentation missing from the Pharaonic record.

People seeking historical evidence of Jesus have not found a thing. Most discoveries have done more to evidence the very opposite theory. Makes me wonder why Christians would want to dig deeper. Why beat your head against the wall? It is what it is, belief based on nothing more than the will to believe (aka religion).

[SidDithers]

243. Excellent post! nt

Sid

[PissedOffPollyana]

245. Thanks Sid

I hope our friend GreenOhio appreciates where it comes from. I have no inclination to bash his/her religion or faith in it but am not sure that s/he gets that. History is a discipline, thus it has rules which must be adhered to when considering something "historical record" or "documentation". Otherwise the whole thing is as suspect as s/he seems to want to think it is. Yet, in this line of thinking, we should just toss the lot because it doesn't give them the insurance in their faith they seem to need.

Unfortunately, I find it a fairly common malady among Christians I have met.

[SidDithers]

265. Yup, I agree...

I especially liked your theme at the end, before your edit, about faith not needing proof. I've made a poor attempt to expand on it further down below, with our Santa Claus friend.

:toast:

Sid

[DrWeird]

211. How do they know it's the oldest part?

Yes, in fact they have survey all over the earth and done radiometric dating. You get a good idea what parts of the earth are older then the others based on plate tectonics. So you go there and sure enough you find the oldest minerals.

"Couldn't that process have continued after the birth of the Earth?"

Like I said. The U/Pb testing provide a lower limit for the earth's age, the meteorites providing an upper limit.

"Can you say for certain that this uranium/lead ratio...cannot be affected by anything? 4.6 billion years is a long time. Are you certain nothing could have interfered with the decay, or the ratio during that time? How do you know the uranium or lead didn't get added later?"

Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote or didn't understand it. The dating techniques can be calibrated and correlated with other dating techniques. The dating techniques are perfectly reliable.

"Its just amazes me. NASA makes prediction after prediction about the environment of planets they go to explore based on the logic and science available. When they get there they discover they were wrong on some of these. They openly admit this and restate. This is part of the scientific process."

What are you talking about? Scientists have made predictions about environments of planets and then gone and checked. That's how science works. Most of the time they're prefectly right. I don't get where NASA has been way off on anything, or what his has to do with the age of the Earth. Is this another King Arthur thing?

"No you believe you can. Until you do, you really don't know. It is just something you believe. Even then, you didn't meet the guy or see him at Waterloo... you sure he was there? So you have a bunch a papers, any body could have forged those back then and made the guy up."

Actually, I can go and look at those historical documents. They're in museums. Some of them I can buy at auctions. I can go to the actual battlefields. If I go there and this stuff is missing then I can suspect that Napolean didn't exist. But you're getting into some philosophical mumbo jumbo, if a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound, do I have to witness something in order for it to exist. Holocaust deniers often use the argument that people forged all those documents and the whole thing never happened. This, of course, is such a ridiculous claim that it can be discounted off hand. As is the claim that Napolean never existed. The idea that all of that was faked is the extraordinary claim, and that's what requires the extraordinary evidence. One would need faith to believe Napolean never existed.

"Except that whole Bible thing. One of the most published books of all time. I know, I know, it can't be considered historical record because it wasn't official records. Only governments record the objective truth. So share your theory on how the Christian church got here. I'm fascinated to hear. We know the church is here. I hope we can agree on that. It got here somehow. Prove your theory"

The Bible isn't evidence not because it's "not an official record" (I never said something had to be a government record to be evidence, that's ridiculous), it's not evidence because it's a book of fiction. There's a book of fairy tales on my bookshelf. The tales within it have been published numerous times all over the world in many languages. That doesn't mean it's evidence that Jack and the Beanstalk existed. The Bible contains stories that are in direct contradiction with established historic and scientific events (Book of Genesis, Creation). The Bible contains myths that are obviously ripped off from myths of other cultures (Noah's Ark is essentially a direct copy of a fragment of the Epic of Gilgamesh). It contains mathematical and geographic absurdities (it claims the world is flat and the value of pi is three). It contradicts itself in numerous places (one book lists the linear descendants from Adam to King David, another book does the same but with completely different names and a different number of descendants). And as for Jesus. The only thing written about him was written down some forty to sixty years after his death and by people who in all likelihood never saw him preach.

If all things are just a matter of faith, then clearly some people's faiths are better then others.

[greenohio]

216. The religious scientist.

Ahh the religious scientist. I ran a test on rocks and I know for sure how old the Earth is. Sure there are assumptions you make after the test to get there, but hey, I can reproduce the experiment.

Theories on the age of the Earth cannot be tested, so they stay theories. The fact of the matter is, we only have some educated guesses that really can't be proven. But you go on believing that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old as some articles claim. I really don't dis-believe it or believe it. The world could be 4.5 billion, or 5.0 billion or 7.6 billion. I don't know. I put this theory in the bran muffin stops cancer category. Could be right, probably will change.

"then clearly some people's faiths are better then others."
Doesn't get any more arrogant than that.

Ahh yes, your faith in the non-Jesus is based on a few disputing historians account trying desperately to prove that Jesus never existed. It has got to kill you that this is not the widely accepted view among historians of that time period. Most historians without an ax to grind do treat Jesus as an actual figure. They don't read a story in Mark about pigs and reach the conclusion that Mark could never have met Jesus. That fact of the matter is, you don't know. I don't know. We believe what we want. Get over it.

How many documents have eyewitness accounts that Alexander the Great existed? How many documents have eyewitness accounts that Plato existed? You don't know off the top of your head. You have to go look them up. You believe they existed. What, you haven't researched it? Why the scrutiny for Jesus? Your burden of proof is inconsistent simply because you've never researched the proof for and against the existence of those guys, or probably any other accepted historical figure.

I'm an equal opportunity skeptic. I don't claim to know everything. I do doubt popular science, as that is vital to the scientific process. I also doubt many things in the Bible. Arguing over history is fun, though hardly scientific. In the end, you just have educated guesses.

And I certainly don't claim some people's faiths are better then others. I leave that to the religious scientists.

[DrWeird]

220. Um, actually, you can test the age of the earth.

It's called radiometric dating. You can actually test minerals. Do double blind studies. Replicate tests. And get definitive answers. If you're skeptical about the tests, test the tests. Give a scientist a piece of a document that you know is five hundred years old. Have him test it via carbon dating without telling him how old it is. He tells you it's five hundred years old. Boom. You've got a postive correlation. Do it a bunch of times and you can prove radiometric dating works. Same thing goes for U/Pb dating. I know Creationists like to argue about that, but they've really got no case. It works. Case closed.

You keep bringing up the bran muffin analogy. But that's clearly a bad analogy. To compare that to radiometric dating is being purposefully deceitful. not terribly Christian, if you ask me.


"'then clearly some people's faiths are better then others.'
Doesn't get any more arrogant than that"

Ahh, but here you're taking something deliberately out of context. I said, "if everything were a(n equal) matter of faith (as you suggest), then clearly some people's faith is better then others"

And this would be true. Some people believe that the holocaust never happened. Some people believe the earth is round and rotates on its axis. If these were both a matter of faith, then one is clearly better then the other.

I find it sad that you saw fit to take this out of context. Isn't there something in the Bible about not giving false witness?

"Ahh yes, your faith in the non-Jesus is based on a few disputing historians account trying desperately to prove that Jesus never existed."

Ah, here's you're mistaken (again). I never claimed that Jesus did not exist. Only that there is no evidence for his existence. "A few disputing historians" (whoever they are) have nothing to do with it. It's a fact that there is no direct evidence that Jesus existed.

"It has got to kill you that this is not the widely accepted view among historians of that time period. Most historians without an ax to grind do treat Jesus as an actual figure."

Ah, there you go again. Just because somebody disputes the existence of Jesus does not mean they have an axe to grind. You're mistaking blasphemy with bigotry. Actually, there are no historians of the time that Jesus lived who record his existence. Sure, there were plenty of later historians who believed that Jesus existed (most were Christian) but they had no direct evidence either. But if you have some direct evidence, I'd sure like to see some. Have you any evidence?

[greenohio]

222. It is reasonable to believe

"Only that there is no evidence for his existence. "
The gospel accounts are reasonable evidence the guy walked the earth. You want just so much more...just for Jesus though.

As for the arrogance statement, the context is a discussion between a Christian and atheist on whether Jesus walked the planet. Neither of whom know. The atheist applies an inconsistent burden of proof for his historical figures... the Christian does not. In the end, you are going to have to come up with accounts for each historical person written by eyewitnesses or you're inconsistent. That fact that you only bother to look up Jesus thus far shows the inconsistency.

As for the bran muffin thing, it does apply. The "Jesus never walked the earth thing" is really in fashion now, just like bran muffins were. In fact, there was at least a scientific experiment supporting bran muffins. You've got nothing except an inconsistent burden of proof to dispute the existence of Jesus. When you apply the same burden to other figures, you end up erasing a lot of history.

The standard, "you don't act very Christian" is nothing new as I posted on other threads. I don't claim to be Jesus. I'm just a fan. Try to stay on topic.

[DrWeird]

238. But the gospels are not evidence for anything.

As has already been explained.

[Sterling]

281. This thread is sad.

I see some very smart well informed people trying hard to help someone out of the darkness they have chose to live in hopelessly.

I grew up in a Christian church and still may be a "Christian" but I cannot allow myself to live in the state of denial that apparently is necessary to be a member of the church. The person on this thread in question is a great example of the kind denial I am speaking of.

[Zhade]

282. You DO know what Atkins died of, right? And his weight when he died?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/02/10/atkins.widow.ap/

NEW YORK (AP) -- Dr. Robert Atkins, whose popular diet stresses protein-rich meat and cheese over carbohydrates, weighed 258 pounds at his death and had a history of heart disease, a newspaper reported Tuesday.

Atkins died last April at age 72 after being injured in a fall on an icy street.

Before his death, he had suffered a heart attack, congestive heart failure and hypertension, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing a report by the city medical examiner.

At 258 pounds, the 6-foot-tall Atkins would have qualified as obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's body-mass index calculator.


The Atkins Diet is a scam.

[Misunderestimator]

229. Documented? Hmmm... You consider the bible to be reliable documentation?

It's times like these that I am grateful for the Christian upbringing I had, in which I learned SO much about the bible and its teachings that I came out the other side. I will NEVER trust one source written by men to prove the existence of Christ. Especially a book that is so rife with ridiculous laws.

And what is this litmus test you have for proving that someone is the GREATEAT human being on earth? Because he prayed for forgiveness for his executioners? And where is that documented aside from the bible? And why do you assume that no other person has ever forgiven his killers?

[PissedOffPollyana]

251. What about Anne Boleyn? She forgave.

There is an excellent site called "The Thinking Man's Bible" which has every book of "the Book (what Bible means)" broken down with some remarkably perceptive, intelligent and amusing commentary. It tracks all the repeated stories like the multiple appearances of the loaves & fishes story (note: Jesus didn't do it 1st), follows the ever-changing story on Moses & God and whether he can/cannot see "him" and compares the "eye-witness accounts" of the gospels.

It only takes a single read of the Book from cover to cover to realize that it is the work of fallible men trying in vain to create the infallible. I wonder how many people have actually done this, rather than the favored method of cherry-picking.

[Cronus Protagonist]

58. Didn't Jesus say, "I am the way..."?

Didn't Jesus say, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me"?

Why isn't that egotistical, authoritarian and selfish? I don't think Jesus was intending to be selfish; if he was the only conduit, that's just a fact and perhaps not as egotistical and selfish as it appears. I'll gladly give him the benefit of the doubt there.

You think Buddha, who (in your out-of-context quotation) was simply exhorting others to love themselves and everyone equally (as did Jesus) was "selfish". That is truly an absurd conclusion to come to from that passage you quoted, and again, it's simply indicative of your own bias than anything else.

I prefer to keep my options open, and I see now that you reject all options despite claiming to be willing to consider them.

Sorry, I took you at your word, at first. I'll try to do better in future :)

[Swamp Rat]

74. I'm curious to see an answer to this post and #55.

It seems it was avoided. I'd like to see an in depth explanation - a real defense of the contradictions you pointed out.

I'll go pop some popcorn in the meantime. :D

[Cronus Protagonist]

124. I hope you have a lot of popcorn

..because answers to the most salient points are hard to come by in this thread.

Lick Laura's Bush - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - FUCK BUSH
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[Swamp Rat]

159. Cronus.com is worth a visit, as your sig line says.

It led me to "Life Without Breath." It's fun meeting talanted musicians with whom I can connect... and people that think outside "the box."

[Cronus Protagonist]

164. Cool, and thanks.

I should probably put http://wakingborn.com in my sig line as well, because it is also worth a visit if one likes thoughtful rock music... hmmmm....

[Bridget Burke]

71. Buddha wasn't executed.

He died a natural death.

And he does not demand worship. He was a teacher, not a God (or Son of a God).

[leesa]

80. You don't understand Buddhism. Perhaps you should learn a little

about it before you start blathering.

[DrWeird]

94. Yes. Buddha was infamous for his selfishness.

Yup, when I think of incarnations of selfishness, Buddha is the first person to pop into my mind.

[Cronus Protagonist]

126. LOL (eom)

Good one, and so true....

Let me guess the response:

"BUT WHERE THE FUCK DID HE CALL FOR MERCY ON HIS EXECUTIONERS?"

hehe. Sometimes ignorance can be soooo funny. :)

Lick Laura's Bush - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - FUCK BUSH
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[skooooo]

171. Buddha..

...was also a materialistic pig.

[DrWeird]

178. That's right.

He was a womanizing, warmongering bastard.

[skooooo]

199. lmao

too funny!

[nolabels]

260. The focus of what we want instead what we enjoy leads strange paths

Some even like to inflict pain on them selves in order to feel alive.

People often use the rendering of their feelings in attempts to protect their beliefs and none of which can be proved (but are real to them).

Some don't feel the need to worship, some spend the whole day worshiping. My opinion is others would not want everybody else thinking just like them. These people, evangelists say to become like Jesus. He this Jesus man, who was also seemed to be a great thinker even if just some of the writing of him are true.

What I would want to know is why would others use his life as for some great reason not to think or perceive the world around them? Beings that it also been reported he born of the flesh and could be conceive he used also cognitive reasoning at one time or another.

Philosophy Forums - Existence vs. reality:
steve
Thinker

Join Date: Aug 7th, 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 298
(snip)
So reality is the sum of all nows in spacetime and all things whether percieved or not in those nows has the property of existence. In the light of modern physics i suspect that this doesn't hold water. Also when it comes to numbers and statements of truth, then by this arguement they exist irrespective of whether they are percieved or not. Does this make sense if perception is intrinsic to their reality quality of existence? I suppose you could argue that perception is in the now and therefore creates them. Since reality changes from now to now then in a sense things are created from nothing all the time, so why not truths? But our experience tells us that the laws of physics say exist independently of our perception of them.

If so then truth exists independently of perception. This doesn't sound convincing. I mean what of falsehoods. Can they exist independently of perception? I suppose you could try and get around it by saying truths and falsehoods do not have the property of existence, but since existence is defined as being the property of being a part of reality then it would follow that truths and falsehoods are not a part of reality. Thus reality isn't everything and that contradicts the original definition.

bugger!

I suppose you could say that truths (including mathematical truths) can exist independently of perception, whereas falsehoods can only exist while being percieved. But can all truths be said to exist in the now when some of them are supposed to be independent of time and space? That would contradict the definition that reality is the sum of all nows since those truths are independent of the nows and thus exist in a sense by definition outside spacetime. Maybe reality is greater than that which exists in all the nows, including 'outside' space and time. If so it is a sod to define in relation to other concepts and we would be constrained to an incomplete definition. Even "Reality is everything that is now, was and forever shall be" is biased in relation to time.

There is another possibility. That all truths change with time, however slightly. Like say the conservation of energy. It could oscillate in some irregular way. But if so then that would also include the truth of the definitions of reality and existence themselves. So again maybe the concepts of reality and existence are approximations due to the changing limitations of conception and language.
(snip)
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=810

[Zhade]

276. How the hell is that SELFISH?

He's just saying it's okay to love yourself, that you have worth as an individual.

I seem to recall that Jesus' two commandments were "Love thy God with all thy heart" and "Love thy neighbor AS THYSELF" - in other words, he had zero problems with you loving yourself.

You sound very misinformed about Buddhism.

[Sterling]

277. And you wonder why many people are put off by Christians?

It's really the arrogant way some Christians view people who disagree with them. Your post is a great example of that kind of attitude.

[liberalmuse]

47. I don't believe Jesus existed...

anymore than Spiderman or Superman existed. These characters do exist in the collective consciousness for some reason. The archetype of the superhuman who wants to save humanity from itself and suffers for it continues to crop up in myth's and folklore throughout human civilization.

My religiously fanatical mother raised us as Christian, though I am now Atheist, and the truth is, the Jesus character and the Bible stories about him really influenced my life. However, I see nothing in Christianity or Christians today that has anything to do with the life of Jesus Christ. Christianity was not a pleasant experience at all.

I may or may not see this movie, but it's likely to bring back memories of Christian Bible camp when a counselor who was scheduled to speak made us all cry by zealously telling every excruciating detail of how Jesus was tortured and crucified. I hate that kind of manipulative BS, but perhaps POTC moves beyond that. I guess I'll have to see it someday to find out.

[kwolf68]

51. Sorry he did

Christ existed.

He walked the earth. Yep...

To compare him to Superman is incredible.

To suggest Christ did not walk the earth takes more faith than those who believe he is our savior.

[Scootman78]

196. Sorry you have no proof, nobody does

He walked the earth. Yep...?

And?

Where is the proof? A book? Two thousand years of teaching?

Sorry, that's not enough.

If somebody believes in Superman as their savior, then how can he be proven wrong? What gives a person the right to say that a comparison between Christ and Superman is "incredible"? Free will, just as Freedom of Religion isn't something to scoff at.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but part of being human means that you can be an individual if you so choose to be. I can tell you that for me, its what makes life worth living.

Who knows what the future holds? Maybe 2000 years from now, people will be praying to the Caped Crusader. If its possible to be 900 years old and still alive, to have talking serpents offer you apples which get you banished from a garden oasis, or to part The Red Sea with a stick, then why are we so quick to denounce the whole Superman as a savior opinion?

I'm not Anti-Christ or Pro-Christ. I'm neutral because I never met the dude. I feel the same way about Superman too.

I wasn't trying to be judgmental of religion with this message, but in fact I was trying to make it known you can't denounce something without having a good proven reason to. Its simply not nice. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all (wish the Republicans thought the same way).

I believe everybody has the power within them to be more open-minded and less judgmental of others they don't know.

Maybe I'm too liberal for some, but who cares? I'm feeling good about what I said. :)

[Swamp Rat]

198. Welcome to DU

I agree with you except the part about being nice to republicans. Some of them deserve to get the shit flung back in their face and I'm here to do it.

[Swamp Rat]

76. "Heaven Help Us" was pretty funny. Did you see it?

Talk about kids getting tortured by maniacal zealots! You'll love Wallace Shawn as Father Abruzzi when he gives a fire and brimstone speech at a dance to keep the kids from an interest in sex... which of course is totally impossible.

[SidDithers]

54. Dude...

How was that proven?

Sid

[Cronus Protagonist]

56. Oh oh, you said the "p" word (eom)

:)

Lick Laura's Bush - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - FUCK BUSH
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[SidDithers]

57. Well, someone had to ask nt

:toast:

Sid

[SidDithers]

78. kick - 'cause this question, and others still haven't been answered. nt

Sid

[Zhade]

283. They often don't.

It's a problem - someone says "he did SO exist!" as if that's proof.

Hard questions go unanswered, it seems. Wonder how the cognitive dissonance feels?

[JNelson6563]

73. Teachings?

Love your enemy? Yeah, brilliant. Look at where it's gotten the Dems over the past few years. I am hard pressed to think of a less intelligent piece of advice. And, if I dare say, isn't there a little hypocrisy here? Who called their enemies "white-washed sepulchers" and other nasty things?

Oh wait, here's another bad piece of advice, "Give no thought to the 'morrow" More "wisdom". If you are working for a living, paying off a home, going to college or saving for your kids to do so you aren't following Jesus' advice but you are being smart.

"Critical thinking"? Where? You believe because you "need" to. Some of us do not believe Jesus was anything but a human who suffered the same fate as countless others. Some of us live as good people for the sake of the greater good. No "just in case" in the back of the mind.

Julie

[Scootman78]

197. Well said!

If the Republicans actually followed the Bible's words (judge not lest ye be judged) then I'm sure the Democrats would've had a lot easier time trying to progress the country over the last 30+ years.

My oldest sister used to be a nice, caring person that I could talk to when I wanted. She had a temper, but she was still pretty nice to talk to. Then after she was married, she started going to church when her new husband 'required' it of her. She now thinks that all homosexuals are evil, watches the 700 club like its the next best thing since sliced bread, and she constantly complains about things she cannot control. Did Jesus teach her to do this?

She thinks I'm brainwashed because I, like my father, refuse to go to church due to the hypocricy and hate that is usually found there. I went once and saw a play called Heavens Gates and He*l's Fire or something like that. It had to be the most awful production ever made. A kid doesn't want to go to church or accept Jesus as his savior. Where does he go after a "convenient" traffic accident? Purgatory maybe? Nope...straigh to the basement. He never hurt anyone and was a pretty nice open-minded kid, but since he didn't love Jesus (a guy he never met), he wasn't even going to end up in limbo.

By the way, George W. once said in an interview that without Jesus, people wouldn't go to heaven. I don't remember who he said it to, but its in Al Franken's 'Lies & Lying Liars' book (awesome book by the way). How can someone who is already denouncing others with that statement be a proper leader of a diverse nation? I know he's Conservative and that limits his open-mindedness already, but could someone please explain to me why he would make a dumb statement like that in an interview - while in politics?!

Back to the point about my sister. I knew my sister was pretty much gone when after just two years of going to church, she believed everything that hateful play told her to believe. She still thinks I'm brainwashed by my father, but she's actually just too ignorant to know its the other way around. She never used to hate people who were different. Those days are gone now though. :(

I'm not anti-God or anti-Jesus (again, if he did exist, there's no proof). I think people are better than they believe they are.

We can be good people without having to selling our souls to hate, bigotry, and hypocricy. We can still be individuals and not sheep if we want to, while still affording our place in heaven (a heaven that doesn't discriminate).

Wow..5:30 am in the morning and I still haven't slept? Is it now getting late or getting early? :)

[Selwynn]

209. This is at the very least debatable

Many of the most revered figures of history taught peacemaking and mercy as virtues. That doesn't make them right, but there is a long and diverse tradition that does see long term personal value in not devaluing your own spirit and person to the level of your enemies by engaging in their injustice.

Exhibiting the better qualities of the human spirit isn't what has gotten the democrats in trouble over the past few years. What has gotten the democrats in trouble of the past few years is not really clearly knowing what they stand for, and not looking all the much different from the other guys. It is possible to speak truth, clearly and powerfully without becoming the "same" as your enemy, and without losing a sense of compassion for all people - they kind of attitude that would rather see them rescued from their evil than destroyed. I don't think we can accuse Jesus of not being willing to speak the hard truth when it was necessary.

And that ties into your next point, which I find profoundly weak. Hear it feels like your really just reaching for some way to make light of the impact of Jesus' teachings. The fact that he called enemies "white-washed tombs" not to me inconsistent with his entire conviction. He spoke the truth, and it so happens the people he spoke the harsh truth to were exactly that: hypocrites who looked clean and righteous on the outside, but whose hearts on the inside were corrupt and "full of dead men's bones." You have to accept the fact that the problem isn't speaking truth - even painful truth, to friends or enemies. The problem is the kind of heart and the attitude of the soul that goes into the speaking. Hatred is absolutely destructive, serving no good, and only tearing down hope, not matter who it is or what "side" they are on.

Notice that at the end of Jesus' most harsh and condemning speech against pharisees and teachers of the law, he weeps, and cries, "O Jerusalem.. how often I have longed to gather you together like a hen gathers her chicks under her wing - but you were not willing." In other words, his desire is that his "enemies" be his friends, and while he resists their evil and speaks boldly (it got him killed) and honestly about their wrongs, ultimately he would like nothing more than for them to change their ways and fellowship in community with him. Anyone who doesn't think that this is the only attitude that will ever heal a nation and restore some vestige of our humanity and greatness is tragically misguided.

I work for a living, I have student loans, car payment, credit bills, family needs, rent, utilities, clothes - and I may lose my job soon. Of course I can't sit on the couch and say "oh well, I know that if I sit here and do nothing God will provide everything for me." But that's never what I've gotten out of Jesus' statement about being anxious for nothing. You know what I get out of that? Extreme comfort, that after I have done my very best - done every possible thing that I can do, that it will be enough. And I'm able to breathe and have peace even in the midst of all my stress, because I can say "I've done my best, and I believe that it will be enough." In other words, I couple these words of Jesus with other words in the scripture where it says, "having done all to stand - stand." The rest of the passage goes on to talk about being at peace even in the midst of the storm. That is very comforting to me.

I have always been a person prone to over-analyze, over think, and over-worry. There was a time where I could never feel at peace regardless of whether I had done by best or not because I was so full of worry about everything. If you're not a person who is like that, no problem. But I am - and Jesus' words there have been a very constant source of comfort and a reminder to me to simple rest and have peace in my heart after I have done my very best, to believe that my best will be good enough.

As far as the critical thinking thing goes, I teach critical thinking as part of my job, and have written several different presentations and articles on critical thinking in both personal and business professional environments - and knowing a little something about it I will tell you this: people who believe, or people who find comfort in the spiritual teachings of different religious figures are not necessary more critical thinkers than you. But guess what, people who do not believe are not necessarily better critical thinkers than them. If you find nothing of value in teachings of Jesus or anyone else, great. No problem. But people who do are not necessarily stupid or misguided. And people who don't are not necessarily smart and well-guided. It's a big world out there, and I'm happy for people to find insight and wisdom from wherever they find it.

Sel

[JNelson6563]

227. People find wisdom where-ever they can

and I have no probelm with this. I don't see that my points have been so clearly debunked by you, I see your perspective on them. Yes, calling someone a white-washed sepulcher is a decidedly un-loving thing to do--regardless of what the recipient of such a remark is guilty of. Urging folks to give no thought to the 'morrow is idiocy and I am glad you disregard such advice--in spite of your effort to quantify it.

You take comfort in your belief, that is all well and good. I take comfort in my own beliefs as well.

The poster I was addressing was taking a two-pronged approach. "It's all true, I just know it!" piggy-backing onto the ol' "But I just gotta believe!"

Sel, the bible is riddled with horrid violence and glaring discrepencies. This is hardly the time or place for a word-parsing, bible based pissing match.

I'll sign off with well wishes for you to enjoy your beliefs and an urging to all not to assert too strongly that your beliefs are fact. One needs no faith to believe facts and the religious require a great deal of faith.

Julie

[Selwynn]

231. My post was not a "debunking" - but a sharing of perspective.

This isn't a "debunkable" issue. It is open to interpretation. No one is objectively right or wrong on an issue of where lessons can be learned in life. The bible, like pretty much everything else in life, is not perfect - not a substitute for rational thought, not an excuse to turn off the brain, not something to be perverted into literalistic dogma. It is however rich with tradition, and capable of being a source of positive wisdom for many. It takes a certain degree of faith to believe anything, even the things we take for granted as scientifically absolute, because certainty is a myth. What we seek out are justifiable beliefs, beliefs that are reasonable and experiential in some way, while being consistent and not contradictory to other beliefs or evidence of experience.

Take care,
Sel

[JNelson6563]

250. Ah, you are correct, my bad.

I went back to re-read your post and I see where I went wrong.

I found your comments interesting and thoughtful. I don't agree with some of them but enjoyed reading them all.

Julie

[Dookus]

84. There's no proof

he existed. No contemporary accounts. None. Zip. Nada.

[SidDithers]

95. That's what I thought, too, Dookus...

and the poster making that claim seems to have disappeared.

I was kinda hoping he was going to claim the ossuary as proof :evilgrin:

Sid

[Darranar]

125. It is NOT proven. And the evidence there is...

don't prove anything about him.

[jmowreader]

200. But you can live a virtuous life without believing

There is a huge hole in Pascal's wager.

Fundies have a rather interesting view of humanity. These are the fundies' choices:

a) Believe there is a God, live a virtuous life, die, find out there is a God and all of it will be worth it.

b) Believe there is a God, live a virtuous life, die, then evaporate because there is no God.

or

c) Believe there is no God, live a non-virtuous life, die, and never find out whether there's a reward in the afterlife because you rejected God.

There is a (d) and an (e)...

d) Believe there is no God but live a virtuous life anyway. You still evaporate, but that's the way it goes.

or

e) Live like Fred Phelps, Jack Chick, Pat Robertson, Falwell, Dubya Bush...believe there is a God, live like the worst ax-murdering sinner in the world, and get sent to Hell when you die because God won't have your kind around him.

[Nobody]

201. You forgot f and g

f: Believe there is a god live your life (virtuous or not), die, discover that there is an afterlife and discover that the supreme being you meet in the afterlife isn't the supreme being you worshipped. This can go one of two ways.

F1: The real supreme being is an insecure being and is put out that you didn't worship it instead of the god you did worship. Go to hell do not pass go and most definitely do not collect 200 bucks.

F2: The real supreme beoing couldn't care any less about what god you did or didn't worship and treats you no differently than anyone else with the same amount of virtue.

g: Not believe in a god, live your life (see above), die, discover that there is a supreme being but that being isn't the one everyone was telling you was supreme.

(see F1 and F2, the results are the same.

This is what I call the Republican Wager:

There is no way to tell which of many possible gods there are. There is no way to be absolutely sure. If you pick a nice god and the one taht exists is the one described above in F1, you're fucked. If the deity is the one described in F2 is the true deity or there are several deities, you're OK. So, the Republican Wager says that to be safest, you should go for the most authoritarian deity you can find. If you can claim that this deity is the same deity as other people worship who isn't anywhere near as tin pot, all to the good. Which explains the Republican tendency to call themselves Christian but their god is all fire, brimstone, wrath (isn't that a deadly sin?), punishment, and WORSHIP MEEEEEEEEE!. Meanwhile most Christians worship a humble, merciful, kindhearted deity.

[jmowreader]

202. And you forgot H

H: Believe there is a God and he's just like the maniac God in the Chick tracts. Die, show up in heaven, find out that not only is God a pretty decent fellow but that there's no lake of fire and they let in anyone.

You get pissed off that God isn't like he appears in the little comic books and God creates a lake of fire so you'll be happy. And then He throws you into it because you're being a pain in the ass and He is in charge.

Do you:

H1--rejoice that there is a punishment for unrepentant sinners in the next world

or

H2--grieve because being a pain in the ass turns out to be the only inexcusable sin?

[Nobody]

203. Good one n/t

[Selwynn]

208. The problem is - I have gained. Quite a bit.

[DrWeird]

28. Oh, I don't know. Seems kind of cowardly to me...

just to believe in something because it might pay off in the end.

Plus, if God were God he'd be able to see through you.

[WLKjr]

30. your right

you do something good becuase it is the right thing to do.


if you ever notice, you have a clearer conscience afterwards and feel better the more you do things that way.

[kwolf68]

48. Bullshit

How about believe in something because its the right thing to do to guide my life.

I don't give a shit about the end.

Cowardly?

What point is there in being a Liberal? WHY feed the hungry? WHY house the homeless? WHY protect our environment? WHY promote PEACE?

WHY WHY WHY???? Why do you want a world of peace? YOU TELL ME why peace is better than war...love is better than hate?

DO YOU KNOW for certain that is the way to live? I don't. ANd I dont care, but I read about this man.... a very progressive man... who lived a certain way...and I respect that way...more than anything I have ever seen.

So I hold him on a pedastal before all others. So I am a coward for doing that? I worship him. No wonder us Dems can't win elections anymore...we have these anti-religious hate-mongers on force.

[The Icon Painter]

77. Language, Please

My goodness, you do seem to be the angry one. Why not just hold your peace and believe whatever you want without swearing at those of us who find your motives for such beliefs - shall we say - questionable?
I, too, was raised Xian by a fanatic of a mother (visualize the film "Carrie") who loudly and often proclaimed her belief and trust in GOD and then proceeded to demonstrate her lack of trust in every thing she did. So, I am now an ethical atheist who has long thought Blaise Pascal a puling coward and hypocrite - if one judges him by his Wager.
Anyway, kwolf68, you're not helping your case with your unbridled hostility and vulgarity.

[DrWeird]

89. Pascal's Wager.

Not Christianity.

Jesus fucking Christ.

[maveric]

207. "ANd I dont care, but I read about this "man""

I believe that he was a "MAN", a radical who was executed for political reasons like many others of that day.
You said it my friend, he was a "MAN".

[WLKjr]

26. Yeah that is what my mom was doing

while I was watching it.

Word for word in a 1947 era bible, like listening to a play by play but interestingly informative and I actually feel enlightend and empowered now with newly aquired knowledge of something.

[istruthfull]

29. happy to

I would be happy to watch another movie about his life, but can live without seeing him being tortured.

[Mandate My Ass]

35. I just love "insurance policy" Xtians

boasting about their superior moral fiber.

Some of us heathens just do the right thing because it's the right thing to do and reward and/or punishment don't enter into the equation.

[mitchum]

38. As a fellow heathen, I agree with you...

but if faith/voodoo/whatever results in other people doing the right thing, I'll settle for that. Consider me a benign Machiavellian.

[Cronus Protagonist]

184. I noticed that this argument is usually the first one attempted

During coversion attempts, I mean. It's the first one out of the bag. I suppose they must think it's the most effective argument for their religion.

Isn't that kind of sad?

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[Djinn]

154. says who?

"...the fact of the matter is he DID walk the earth, HE WAS a great man, and HE DID go thru a torture no man should ever have to go thru."

there's not a shred of evidence to show that Jesus ever existed at all.

as for what was depicted in the bible - there are contradictions in it that would make it impossible to film anything about Jesus' "life" who's word would you follow? which one is authoratative?

btw kwolf68 - I'm not "mocking" your beliefs I just don't share them and I'm also not "anti-religious" I just can't stand religious lies or ignorance and your statement that it's a FACT that jesus existed is one of those.

[mitchum]

8. I just watched "The Passion of Christy"

I bet I had a better time :)

[kiahzero]

11. How was the three hour snuff film? (n/t)

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kiahzero]

32. Sorry - two hour snuff film. (n/t)

[WLKjr]

27. Provocative....

I was curious and watched it with my mom who explained things to me as it went along.

The movie isn't bad, gory yes, but not bad.

I don't see why this whole thing was blown sky high in the first place.

[merh]

14. I read the books - I know how it ends!

Movies never do justice to the book.

[kwolf68]

20. This one did

If you believe Jesus was a great man, this would hurt you.

If you believe Jesus was your savior, this will bring you to your knees.

Only a pathetic human could watch this movie and mock it.

[merh]

34. I do not mock the movie - I mock the failure of the movie to

depict the life of the man - the true messages of the books of the gospel.

It is so easy for many to take snippets from the bible and use them to further their hatred and prejudice, yet they miss the very simple message of the gospels and of Jesus life. Love - if you love you cannot hate - to emmulate his life you must love so much that you are willing to give your own life for others.

The new testament in effect amends and simplifies the message of the old testament. Live your life with love and you cannot break any of the 10 commandments.

I can appreciate the depth of Jesus' sacrifice without a movie, I find it sad that folks have to go to a movie to appreciate the sacrafice of his life for us. The message of Jesus' life is love, pure, unconditional and undying love. I don't need a movie to help me appreciate that.

[kwolf68]

40. Ahh

The movie was NOT about the "life of the man"

My perspective is the movie was nothing more than a testament to what he went thru "for us".

It is documented fact that while he is getting nailed to the cross he is still begging for the mercy of those who are nailing him to it. I could care less if he is "my savior or not", to see what they did to him and to see his compassion TOWARD THEM in the end speaks volumes.....VOLUMES.

Why do you find it sad that people have to go to to a movie. I didn't really get the real appreciation of President Kennedy's brillaince during the Missle Crisis until I had seen the movie.

Movies bring our life to vision. I appreciate the man Jesus was...And to see him beaten to a bloody pulp for a solid hour makes you wonder what the hell it all means anyway, but I appreciate the movie.

I know Mel Gibson is a right-winger. I hate his politics. I am a very progressive Liberal thru and thru, but I believe he did this movie right. The only thing that was whacked was that funky Satan guy walking around and the "visions" that some had, but some liberty is expected.

[merh]

46. It was about his death, which was not about his entire life...

I am glad you got so much out of the movie - I got that message years ago and do not feel that seeing the movie will alter anything for me.

[kwolf68]

53. Thats fine

We are not robots. If you don't need to see it, then don't.

I liked the movie. It wasn't good per se, but I liked it.

I will admit right now, I detect a strong anti-Christian sentament from Democrats and that is a loser move.

I can tell you right now if John Kerry and John Edwards mocked Jesus the way many on here do I would not vote for them.

Sad thing is...the teachings of Christ are so beautfilly progressive yet some progressives are so full of hate (just like the right) they can't see it.

[merh]

87. My posts in no way mocked the movie or Jesus...

Your sensitivity on the issue is not necessary and your judgment of the DUers is not very Christian. Consider the doubters as the tax collectors and like Jesus, sit at their table.

Most DUers mock the false christians that profess the "message of Christ" but have no idea what the true message of Christ's life is - Love. They do not practice their religion -- they cannot as they have too much hate in their hearts for anyone that is different than they are. The fundies and their false prophet leaders do not practice the messages of Christ, so their empty preachings from the bible cause more harm than good (which is why many mock the religious, they can speak the message, but in no way live it). That is why the concept of the movie bothers me so. Violence and death do not depict his life and the last few hours of his life leave out a lot of the message of his life.

Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell were better movies of his life, because they contained more of the messages of his life than does a movie that focuses on the horror of his death.

[DemBones DemBones]

41. Did you SEE the movie?

If not. . .

[merh]

45. Read my original post - no I haven't

if not what - I don't have to see a movie to appreciate the sacrafice, any more than I have to go to Iraq to appreciate the horrors.

I was not mocking the movie in any way, I think it is great if folks get something out of it -- except, it is a movie and all of our lifes we have been brought up to believe that movies are make believe.

[saracat]

50. And if you think neither?

You sound like you think there are only two catagories we potential viewers could fall into. There are many more. What if I don't believe Jesus was a great man? And what if I don't believe he was my savior? What then? Just curious. Because it sounds that if one doesn't adhere to one of those premises, this wasn't a good film.

[Djinn]

156. or perhaps a Jew

who is tired of the "blood libel" myth, there were pressing political reasons to blame Jews rather than Roman for "Jesus'" death when the relevant versus were written and yet people the world over refuse to see the Bible (or any other holy text) for whjat it is - ie written in relation to political, moral and social values at the time.

BTW - I don't see any post here stating that those who beleive in "Jesus as the saviour" are pathetic, yet you've just written off a bunch of us in that way. You seriously need to examine some of your attitudes before claiming that everyone else is a bigot.

[Cronus Protagonist]

21. Did you see any of the Swiftboat Veterans for Bush there?

I have to verify the historical accuracy - maybe, just maybe, one of them wasn't really there...

[kwolf68]

25. LMAO in a sad kind of way

//

[VOX]

61. Yes. They're all a single character: Judas.

:evilfrown:

[DrWeird]

23. *Spoiler*

the Predators win.

[Cronus Protagonist]

33. Yeah, he escapes and fucks the prostitute

I knew the ending had a twist, but that was almost too much to take, even in the context of their love-hate relationship. And the plan for their escape together was a bit too far-fetched to be believable. No wonder it went so horribly wrong.

Other than that, it was a good movie.

Lick Laura's Bush - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - FUCK BUSH
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[Disturbed]

63. Suicide or on orders.

I never have understood if Jesus commited suicide or was following orders from his father.

In my view, having seen many trailers this is a sado/masochistic blood fest.

The sermon on the mount was quite good though.

People that follow Jesus' teaching are just fine with me.

Budha had great teachings too. I have never thought that people worship him but rather try to follow and practice his teaching. It seems to be more of a a philosophy than a ritualistic religion.

[LiberalManiacfromOC]

90. Damn! I was thinking I might go see it!

:)

[greenohio]

103. Not a great political statement.

Statements like this do not help the Democratic cause.

[Cronus Protagonist]

118. Lighten up dude

It was a joke in response to the post entitled "Spoiler" - everyone knows the ending of the dam movie, so how could there be a spoiler? Well, perhaps if the ending wasn't what you expect.....

By the way, don't you think Mary Magdoline, being a prostuture and all, might have given Jesus head? I'm thinking that would also make for a better movie and it is so sad to think that Jesus may have died never having had a boner in his entire life...

Lick Laura's Bush - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - FUCK BUSH
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[greenohio]

133. This is a real sensitive post.

You have quite a colorful vocabulary.

[Cronus Protagonist]

134. You have not seen a tenth of it

I can assure you. :)

Lick Laura's Bush - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - FUCK BUSH
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[greenohio]

128. Lets have our discussion on the appropriate thread

"Why are you changing the conversation and reframing your referents?"

I'm not. In that thread, I am trying to nail down a definition of bigotry DrWierd and I can agree on.

Lets talk about your post on this thread. Do you see how your post in 33 is offensive to Christians? I found it offensive. The whole world can see this thread. We are in the middle of an election. Do you think posts like this attract Christians to the Democratic cause? Or do you think we don't need them to win?

[DrWeird]

138. That was offensive to christians?

All of them? Or just the hypersensitive humorless ones?

Honestly, I can see how any real Christian would be offended by a joke like that, or vote conservative because of it.

[Cronus Protagonist]

143. If all Christians stayed away from the polls we would win in a landslide

But you know that, right?

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[0rganism]

62. How would you compare it to "The Last Temptation of Christ"?

I find it interesting that one movie of the life of Christ was picketed by Christians, while the other movie about the death of Christ was heavily endorsed by congregations.

[Swamp Rat]

68. I had to elbow my way through nuns and a priest just to see it in a small

neighborhood theater. They were telling me I was going to Hell and shook their rosary beads at me and my poor mom. I don't know about Gibson's movie because I didn't see it. The clips I saw looked like pornographic violence and choreography didn't seem to compare to "The Last Temptation of Christ." The sound track by peter Gabriel was pretty good too and I just loved Harry Dean Stanton.

[WLKjr]

88. Yeah that is odd...

but I never saw that one so I can't say anything about it.

[0rganism]

98. Put it on your short list -- equal time, ya know?

Maybe have a Christfest weekend: Passion, Temptation, and Life of Brian.

[WLKjr]

100. so far I have watched them bass ackwards

Life of Brian (owned first) Passion of the Christ (mom bought second) so I guess I will have to finish it off then :)

[DerekG]

93. "Last Temptation" is an unsung masterpiece

Akin to crossing the Gospel with "The Twilight Zone." There are at least a dozen points in the film which leave me in tears. And Defoe comes across as the Jesus I always imagined--fiery yet gentle.

"The Passion of the Christ", on the other hand, left me with the feeling that I just watched a skin flick.

[0rganism]

99. Great description -- crossing the Gospel with "The Twilight Zone."

Amazing that such a beautiful, intelligent film could get a foul reputation for speculating about the psychological temptations which Christ resists!

[Cronus Protagonist]

129. I agree, I like the Last Temptation of Christ

It was well played, artfully done and brought up many points of contention, so it made a lot of people think a little deeper into the subject.

I did get my car antennae torn off by a Christian outside the movie theater for watching that one, may his God bless his wicked soul.

Lick Laura's Bush - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - FUCK BUSH
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[genius]

176. The Last Temptation has one good scene. It was a better movie.

The best scene in LT was where Paul was telling Jesus they didn't need him to die on the cross because they could just make it up and that is what most right-wing freaks have done. They've so distorted what Jesus said and stood for that he would disavow modern Christianity.

[DerekG]

64. This Christian was horrified by the Passion

I saw it but once (and I will never watch it again), but the viewing was one of the worst experiences in my life. I've always looked upon the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ as the most beautiful love (as in agape, not eros) story of the Western world; Gibson sees it as an exercise in pornography. He has brought brutality into the heart of Christianity, and I can do nothing but balk at his masochism.

If one seeks to tap into the spirituality of Christianity, please watch "The Gospel According to St. Matthew" (the 60's Italian film)and Martin Scorcese's adaptation of "The Last Temptation of Christ."

[jonnyblitz]

72. i thought of it as "pornography" too. SM porn to be precise.

It was two hours of beating the crap out of some long haired dude. People were sobbing all around me as I rolled my eyes. As a hardcore atheist I suppose I just didn't "get it". :eyes:

[Pushed To The Left]

65. I think it had a very liberal message

When I watched the movie, I saw Jesus and his followers as the liberals of the movie, and the people that crucified him as a bunch of intolerant, narrow-minded, right-wing social conservatives. They punished Jesus for going against the established way of doing things.("traditonal values") Killing somebody for "heresy" definitely seems pretty right-wing to me. I think the movie showed how destructive intolerance and blindly following tradition can be. I don't see why so many people had a problem with the movie.

[Guava Jelly]

66. who won the romans or the christ child

just kidden

[ET Awful]

67. Hooray for 3 hours snuff films n/t

[underpants]

70. Can I ask your opinion on this?

An oldie but a goodie, I couldn't me more proud.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=818212

[Fozzledick]

192. The Jesus Horror Picture Show!

Damn, I can see it now - a rowdy, cynical crowd of cultish fanatics dressed in Roman togas fills the theater every Saturday night at a special midnight showing to shout straight lines in unison and throw things at the screen.

[chefgirl]

79. How about a little tolerance, folks

You know, after just reading this entire thread, I have to speak up and say that the people here who find it necessary to vilify anyone who dares to speak up and profess a belief in Christ, just manage to make complete asses of themselves.

I've seen it on DU a million times, and its really no different than what the RW tries constantly to do to the LW. That is, try and make someone seem loony because they believe something different from the seeming majority. It's bullying.
I wonder, would you folks walk into a Church, where you are clearly in the minority, and so vociferously spew your disagreement with what's being put forth from the pulpit??

I haven't seen ONE person in this thread trying to denigrate non believers. If you don't believe, then don't believe, but you could at least have the common decency to respect the sanctity of others beliefs.

That said, I am a Christian, I saw the movie, and found it to be wayyyy too gory. A Hollywood contrivance sure to earn big bucks.

-chef-

[SidDithers]

81. My only question was after a poster said it was proven that Christ...

was a real person who walked the Earth. I asked for his proof, and all I got was the sound of crickets.

Apologies if that seemed intolerant. I wasn't questioning his faith, just his statement.

Sid

[daddybear]

236. TRY to comprehend the fact...

that all we need (as Christians) is the Bible (Word of God as we trust it to be)... that IS proof (plus the fact that history bears it out that the man Jesus of Nazareth was born, lived and died (i.e. was crucified). Not being ugly, but, do some study -- not our job to do that for ya... and we trust, as you study (IN EARNEST) you will be led to see the truth... if not... hey, we did our part...

[SidDithers]

242. No, it is your job to do it for me...

if the claim is made, as the poster most definately claimed, that Jesus walked the earth, then some proof must be supplied to support that claim.

If you want to claim the Bible (as the Word of God) as your proof, go ahead. But be prepared for many of us to want something more tangible than that - see the earlier posts about the bones of Napoleon or the Pharoahs.

You also state that "plus the fact that history bears it out that the man Jesus of Nazareth was born, lived an died (i.e. was crucified)"

Since you used the word "plus", you're implying that there is more evidence than the parables in the Bible. Not to be ugly, but what else have you got?

Oh, and by the way, I have studied, in earnest even, which is why I'm asking a question that I don't think you have an answer for.

Sid

[daddybear]

244. <grin>

I don't need an answer; I have mine... you do... if you will not receive the Word of God, then you remain in the dark. Jesus said (sorry, we believe not only IN Him, but we believe HIM) "a wicked and adulterous nation seeketh after a sign, and a sign will not be given -- save the sign of Jonah and the whale." (he was swallowed up for mocking God and shrugging off God's command, and when God was finished with him, he was spewed back on land --- and he hit it running to do God's will! Hahaha) So, if you seek a sign of some kind... good luck in finding that which you will not accept... faith...and the written Word. And I do mean it--- good luck in finding your way as you need to --- if you will be open, God will show you... otherwise... it will not be settled on a web site in cyberspace.

[DrWeird]

246. He's right.

If you're going to make a claim that there is evidence for Jesus, then you should be willing to back that up. If you are unable to back that up then you would be lying, since there is no direct evidence for Jesus.

Doesn't the Bible say something about not giving false witness?

[daddybear]

247. The Bible is the proof

as well as a knowledge of Christ residing in my heart and soul and life daily (and millions of others). That is all *I* need. And THAT is not false witness at all, just witness.

And...er.. either use the Bible as true or not true... if it is true then that is all the evidence needed... if not, then why even bring up what "it" says? LOL. How odd.

[DrWeird]

248. No. The Bible is a story book.

It's been proven wrong in several parts and other parts contradict themselves.

And the parts about Jesus were written sixty years after he supposedly died. It's no more proof of Jesus then your avatar is proof of Santa Claus.

Look. You can go ahead and believe in Jesus all you want to. Just don't go around saying that faith is evidence and the love that you have in your heart is proof.

Because if you go around saying there's real, direct evidence for Jesus, that would be a lie, and I don't think Jesus would like that very much. Assuming he existed and could hear you.

[daddybear]

254. Then it shall remain...

forever true... and may God, through His dear Son, bless and annoint your life.

[SidDithers]

263. I respect your faith and think I understand what you're saying...

even though you don't seem to, or choose not to, accept my point.

Your, or my, faith is as strong or as weak as we make it. Faith needs no proof. In fact, seeking proof for your faith indicates doubt about that faith.

Did Jesus exist? That's the question we're discussing. You have your faith, and to you, no further proof is needed. But your statement about Jesus' existence would then have to be something like "I believe Jesus existed" or even "I know in my heart that Jesus existed because that is what my faith tells me" You need to qualify your statement as a statement of faith, because faith is the complete opposite of proof.

By stating that "Dude, he DID exist, this is proven" the other poster made the claim, and therefore must supply the proof. He wasn't talking about faith.

I'd still like you to address your statement "plus the fact that history bears it out that the man Jesus of Nazareth was born, lived and died (i.e. was crucified)" If you want to claim faith as your proof, don't bring history into it. If you've got historical evidence, give it up.

Sid

[Zhade]

284. I think it's amazingly funny you have a Santa icon.

He's been proven as real as Jesus.

Oh, sweet irony!

[PissedOffPollyana]

259. Sorry to burst your bubble, daddybear

But no place called Nazareth existed at the time that your messiah was supposedly born. It came well after the myth had gone through some mistranslations along the way. The earliest suggestion of a place called "Nazareth" is circa 300 CE.

Yeshua (the name that got mangled by gentiles) ben Yosef (Joseph after gentile translation), the rabbi written about in the gospels, as well as several of the purported disciples have been theorized to have been members of a sect of Judaism known as Essenes. John (Yohannan - the baptist) fits the description found at Qumran of the more ascetic version of the sect near the Dead Sea, while Yeshua more resembled (by the quotations ascribed in The Book) the Mt. Carmel Essenes sect, which was closer to what we know of the Gnostic point of view. FYI, these folks were sometimes called Nazarene (truth/branch).

There is also no record of a census at the supposed time of the "virgin" birth, serious doubts about the translation that gave us "virgin" to begin with, no random slaughter of Jewish babies, etc. I like to do my own study, thanks. Want some links, perhaps they'll shed some light on what actually qualifies as a "fact of history"?

Oh, but if you are going to "do our study for us" I would respectfully request that you reference more than one Book, preferably a few outside the "popular fiction":"mythology" category.

[DrWeird]

92. villify?

The only intolerance I've seen in this thread is towards shallow Hollywood productions, and Buddha.

[chefgirl]

158. Oh, don't I feel TOLD?

Dr.Weird....your rapier wit has simply slain me.
How will I ever pick up the shattered pieces of my life and go on?

While I cannot take credit for vilifying Buddha, I can and will take credit for vilifying shallow Hollywood productions. They are, after all, out to get my money.

If you are, however, offended by my vilification of shallow Hollywood contrivances, feel free to take the appropriate contrary opinion.

Frodo lives, indeed.

-chef-

[Cronus Protagonist]

161. Hey HEY! How about a little tolerance here?

Shallow Hollywood productions keep a lot of people paid, provide jobs and health benefits to their employees, not to mention helping to make life a little more bearable for the people who enjoy them.

No need to vilify them.

And although Buddha was attacked here in this thread, it certainly wsn't you who did so, and I don't see anyone accusing you of doing so either. Besides, I doubt his current incarnation is concerned about what is posted here at DU.

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[chefgirl]

165. HA!

Why is it that I'm not surprised that at least one person wouldn't be able to resist defending shallow Hollywood productions??
And here I thought I was making a joke.

Go figure.

-chef-

[skooooo]

169. Buddha *was* bad..

come on DrWeird admit it.


(just doing my bit to muddy the water)

[greenohio]

113. You are not alone

There are many Christians on these boards offended by these threads. They make jokes with total insensitivity to ones faith and they don't even see the pain they inflict. Then they say, hey its not bigotry, its just a joke. Like the black jokes, the Polish jokes, the Jew jokes.... The Democratic party will die if it alienates Christians in the US. We are going to learn this, one way or another.

[Cronus Protagonist]

144. Excuse me. It's the "Christians" here vilifying the rest of us

They are taking offense where none was intended, misinterpreting, twisting and exaggerating other people's arguments, name calling, feigning offense, lying about their own beleifs, and now you call for restraint from the non-Christians?

I think they could use some of that tolerance of which you speak, but you are correct, since they are doing such a poor job of defending themselves and their religion, it is a crying shame to beat them up.

Let me know when someone does that and I'll personally write them a condescending note like yours. But so far, all I've seen are polite posts and thoughtful commentary on some controversial subjects.

Note the small number of deleted messages in the thread, if you don't believe me.

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[greenohio]

147. Foul and sexual language is polite?

Your perspective of polite, might not jive with the rest of the US.

[Cronus Protagonist]

150. It's polite to ask someone before you fuck them, isn't it?

"foul" language has nothing to do with politeness, neither does sexual language.

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

83. i saw the Passion a while back, at a theater. Some observations.

It was a powerful experience, and by powerful I mean in a "being beaten with a metaphorical stick" way. It validated my belief that Mel Gibson has a fixation on violence, and it seems he keeps working to find even more ways to linger on and celebrate graphic, blood soaked sadistic scenes.

I will agree that this movie reflects fairly accurately the crucification as described in the bible. (although I couldn't find the passage that described in detail the bilateral violent dislocation of Jesus's shoulders, a scene that Gibson played to the max, complete with the "popping" sound).

The scene which shows the overhead view of the crucification site at the moment of Christ's death and then culminates with God shedding a tear was awe inspiring. That was the most beautifully done part of the film, for me. The rest was Jesus, a skinny passive guy, being beaten on by big Roman thugs for two hours.

BTW, my favorite part of attending the movie was a couple of kids, about 17 or 18 y/o, who wer sitting behind me. They started out making fun of the early scenes of the demons as seen by Judas and I wondered if I was stuck sitting in front of a couple loud morans who thought they were funny, but were just annoying. By the end of the movie, when the lights came on, they were sitting in slack jawed silence. I almost laughed out loud, but restrained myself. I'm glad I saw it, just to know what the fuss was about. MKJ

edited for clarity.

[datasuspect]

91. what i don't understand is . . .

what the hell is so BAD about crucifixion? is this really the worst fate that can befall a body?

how is this so terrible (even with Jesus's accompanying torture) and why does it rank as this "tremendous" sacrifice which "proves" that god loves us so much that he gave his only begotten son.

BULLSHIT.

i can think of way more painful things to bear.

jesus even had an out. he DID have an opportunity to NOT experience this form of death.

does a five year old child who gets molested have an out?

does a 10 year old soldier in some third world country have an out?

christians are some of the best bullshit artists out there, what is sad is that they are so blinded by religious/emotional/psychological dependence and fervor, they will never see the role they play in the greatest farce ever foisted upon humaninty.

"If there were a god, it would be necessary to abolish him." Mikhail Bakunin

[ldf]

97. "I just watched The Passion of the Christ"

i have no questions.

but you do have my sincerest condolences. hopefully the trauma will fade with time.

[stavka]

105. How did you stay awake?

[WLKjr]

108. I watched it with my mom

Saw stuff I already knew what happend.

Why everyone talks bad or talks good about this movie is beyond me. It was pumped up and nothing more.

All I have noticed is that it casuses people to make fun of one another, chastise everyone who does believe and chastise those who don't.


Maybe there's a bigger picture to this whole story.

if everyone treats each other good, we all live happy and things will be good for us, which will never happen becuase people act ignorant.

[Chovexani]

117. Here we go again

:eyes:

[greenohio]

121. I loved this movie. I found it moving. One of my all time favorites.

As a Christian, I loved this movie. Jesus' sacrifice for me was portrayed in a fashion that felt real and emotionally moving.

[Cronus Protagonist]

131. Don't you think the movie cheapened your religion?

Personifying Jesus in an actor's image, and relating one possible impression of His last moments makes a mockery of Him and his life.

His life's work is disregarded by the movie, instead focussing on the last moments of torture and violence that was common in these times. How many others also had to drag their crosses through town and suffer the same fate, before and after Jesus? The most important part of Jesus's life was long before that moment, and his accomplishments and teachings are barely mentioned in the movie.

Once you've seen the movie, you are not open to creating your own imagined visions of Christ's end times, hence the visionary aspect of your religion is cheapened, bowing instead to Mel's bloody orgy of hate and humility when your own thoughts might have had a more beneficial and enlightening experience for you.

If I were a Christian, I would be pissed off that Mel cheapened my Christ like that. How dare he? Now, Jesus has forever that anglo-saxon white-boy face of an actor with fake blood dribbling from plastic tubes under his wig. How cheap is that?

Lick Laura's Bush - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - FUCK BUSH
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[greenohio]

135. Using that logic...

you would never portray Christians, Christ, or God in any movie...because it would cheapen them.

Using that logic, a movie should always include all of Christ work, leaving out any part would imply that part wasn't important.

Actually, the conversations that this movie has sparked in my life has added to imagined portrayal of Christ's end times. Because of the movie, many of us went back and re-read those passages, some details were long forgotten.

As for the movie being bloody, uhhh, it was a scourging and crucifixion. It was rated R, as it should have been. What is really funny, is that there are plenty of gross bloody movies, I hope those who call this one porn/blood orgy call all of them porn/blood orgy as well. My guess is not, and the porn comments are reserved for bloody movies with Christ.

Is it possible to create a movie about Christ that you would feel would not cheapen it? You seem to set the bar rather high, since this movie made 370M...the biggest money maker with that rating of all time.

[DrWeird]

139. Nobody's saying not to have movies portraying Christians...

but it's awfully shallow for people to have a spiritual awakening at the local Regal Six because they'd rather see the movie then read the book. And then there's the whole idol worshiping thing. 370M? Wow, that's a lot of money. I bet you could make a whole lot more setting up moneylenders in temples.

[greenohio]

145. Reread the post

Saying that making a movie about Christ, cheapens Christ has two conclusions:

1)If you don't want to cheapen Christ, don't make movies about him
2)All movies about Christ cheapens him

Either way, the logic attempts to discourage movies about Christ.

The idol worship attack on Christians is nothing new. It is the most popular argument against Christianity. Christians are hypocrites. Christians did wrong here and did wrong there. Christians love money.

I guess only perfect people can be Christians, otherwise they are hypocrites. Since no one is perfect, no one should be Christians.

I don't agree with this logic.

[Cronus Protagonist]

152. I don't agree with your "logic" either

Mainly because you commit so many logical fallacies that it's impossible for me to accept your arguments as even ocurring in the logical domain.

Then you go and add your own list of smears against Christians, as if someone here at DU had posited them when, in fact, you are the only one to mention them at all and are the one to bring them into the discussion.

Now if you were to make the case for your emotional opinions, you would be on firmer ground, but logic? You have no knowledge of which you speak.

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[greenohio]

172. Ok, where are the logical fallacies

To avoid responding you just take general swipes.

Dude, you poddy-mouthed some people's God...you wrote about him having having sex with a prostitute and asked questions about him participating in specific sex acts with her.

You declare you were just talking about the movie, or they were just jokes. Either way, they were offensive. Racists use the same kind of cover.

And then of course the last resort, claiming that I "have no knowledge of which I speak". because I spoke out.

[Cronus Protagonist]

183. I saw a movie with that stuff in it

We're talking about movies here. You, however don't seem to be on topic.

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[Cronus Protagonist]

142. No, all movies cheapen the subject

It's the nature of the medium - it's a business of story telling for money and the cast are all whores, selling their bodies for all that lovely money.

Surely you don't think Jesus would be proud of this movie, do you?

As for your gross exaggerations and mistinterpretation of my "logic", I won't dignify them with any further commentary.

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[greenohio]

146. I don't claim to speak for Christ

I don't know how Jesus feels about the movie. I only know it moved me and many other Christians I have spoken with. It has created a tool for Christians to discuss Christianity in environments that appear hostile to the topic. And you may not feel that DU can be hostile to Christians, but many Christians feel that way.

[Cronus Protagonist]

151. Sure, it's true that "many Christians" feel that way...

If, by "many", you mean three or four.

And surely you know that I am not responsible for anyone's feelings but my own, as are you. In fact, I see quite a few Christians posting in this thread, stating their opposition to, or dislike of the movie in question, and they don't seem to think this thread is at all "hostile" to Christians.

If it hurts your "feelings" to read a frank and open discussion about a slasher movie, then I implore you not to read any threads that might offend, like this one. The choice is yours as much as it is of the people you claim to defend.

And your claim that the movie is "a tool for Christians to discuss Christianity in environments that appear hostile to the topic," betrays your intentions. You claim DU is such a place, but the main fallacy in your statement is that we're not discussing Christianity, but the movie itself, not the religion that it cheapens with its tawdry fascination with blood-letting and painful humiliation.

It is the epistomology of movies that they cheapen that which they touch, and this is no exception.

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[greenohio]

167. Read the thread, more is discussed than the movie.

I know, in the guise of, "I'm just talking about the movie." or "hey its just a funny joke." you feel you can say any offensive foul-mouthed statement that you like. It's the same excuse used by racists to defend their jokes.

Paint it any color you want, there is hostility to Christianity here, and it does not bode well for the Democratic party in the future.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

177. I find it interesting that some of the most intolerant people I've ever...

...in my life are those that profess to be Christians.

At the same time they're telling you the teachings of Christ, an individual who was extremely tolerant for his times, they want to tell you that you can't believe any other way or you won't get to Heaven.

At the same time they tell you to donate money to help the homeless and hungry, they're using some of that same money to add on to the physical plant of their church.

At the same time they're telling you to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, they're working on yet another invasion of a country that has natural resources that we want.

At the same time they're telling you that they will take care of everyone in America, they're cutting taxes for the rich, and cutting social programs/benefits for everyone else.

Do you still wonder why there is hostility on the DU boards toward Christians?

[greenohio]

185. The religious right is a pain...

but hostility to Christianity doesn't help us. What is fascinating is that many Democrats base the caring for the old, the poor and defenseless on Christian principles. I know I do.

As for your experience with Christians, don't judge Jesus by his fans. Christians are not perfect. Its like judging Michael Jordan's basketball capability by the behavior of his fans.

[Fozzledick]

194. The problem here (as I see it)

The problem is that real Christians are too polite to publicly criticize anyone, even the con artists who blaspheme in their name.

[Cronus Protagonist]

188. The Democratic Party welcomes all Christians

I'm just a guy having a conversation on a bulletin board, not the leader of the Democratic Party.

I also understand the Democratic party welcomes other religions than just Christians, with Buddhists, Hare Krsnas, Wiccans, atheists, scientists, physicists, psychiatrists, psychologists and scientologists, among them.

So what's your complaint? We're not nice enough to your religion on DU?

[daddybear]

130. Just a comment

I have it on DVD... watched it months ago when my daughters friend downloaded it from the net (oh my)... anyway... it is a GREAT soul-winning tool for those open to knowing what the cost of salvation really was... as a Christian, I watched it ONE TIME and that was enough... that is MY Saviour and it REALLY cur deep... GREAT depiction of probably one 100th of what Jesus went through for us all...

[donkey_man]

132. Mel is a joke.

Gibson is such a weirdo.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

170. So,....

...tell me why you picked "donkey_man" for your boardname?

[bobbyboucher]

149. Where can I find the documentation of Jesus' death, in detail

besides the gospel? Are there any Roman records of that event? Apparently Gibson's movie is very detailed, but what is his source, the New Testament?

Were the authors of the Gospels, Matt, Mark, Luke, John, were they contemporaries of Jesus?

Just a couple things I'd like to know that I haven't ever been taught.

[JPJones]

160. There are no Roman records

The Gospels as we know them were written about 40 years after the event, but were derived from an earlier source.

The epistles were actually written earlier than the Gospels. Peter and James knew Jesus, but ironically, Paul did not.

[dand]

157. It is a ficticious tale, it never took place,

it is a mind numbing drug. There is no invisible cloud being who knows all and sees all, GROW UP!

[Cronus Protagonist]

162. Prove it!

(heh)

:)

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[BlueJazz]

174. I've found this article to be Interesting...

http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html

[genius]

175. Did you throw up?

That movie is the most disgusting thing I've ever seen. The only ones who could like it are people who get high on thinking about Jesus being tortured - in otherwords Anti-Christ types.

[Cronus Protagonist]

191. What's with all the Buddha bashing in this thread?

I mean, even in jest, it's not cool to slam someone like Buddha. How would you feel if it were Jesus Christ?

I don't know how you can slam Buddha when He keeps coming back over and over to suffer the limitations and living pains in each of his reincarnations just for our sake.

He could be hanging out in Nirvanha and abandon us entirely. What other person could have done this? Jesus? Hmmmfff He took the quick way out. One lifetime. It was good, though, don't get me wrong, but it was only one lifetime. Buddha endures many lifetimes for us.

I think if your deity won't reincarnate over and over for you, they can't be much of a deity and I would never follow them.

/sarcasm

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[Swamp Rat]

195. Conan: What Gods do you pray to?

Subotai: I pray to the 4 winds, and you?

Conan: To Crom, but he doesn't listen.

Subotai: Heh, what good is he than?

Conan: Crom is strong! When I die, I will go to Valhalla, and he will ask me: What is the riddle of steel? And if I don't know it, he will cast me out of Valhalla laughing. That's Crom, strong on his mountain.

Subotai: My God is greater.

Conan: Hah! Crom laughs at your four winds. Laughs from his mountain.

Subotai: My God is the everlasting sky, your God, lives beneath him.

[justme2005]

205. Did Christ exist?

Many replies on this thread question whether Christ
is an actual historic figure. Below are a few quotes
from contemporary historians outside of the bible.

In his Annals, Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 CE) writes
that Christians

"derived their name and origin from Christ, who,
in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by
the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate"
(Annals 15.44)

And from the writings of Flavius Josephus, a
contemporary Jewish historian:


"Now there arose about this time a source of
further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who
performed surprising works, a teacher of men
who gladly welcome strange things. He led away
many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles. He
was the so-called Christ. When Pilate, acting
on information supplied by the chief men among
us, condemned him to the cross, those who had
attached themselves to him at first did not
cease to cause trouble, and the tribe of
Christians, which has taken this name from him,
is not extinct even today.

Whether Christ is divine is an open question and
can be rightfully debated. Whether he walked the
Earth is not debatable.

[DrWeird]

213. Cornelius Tacitus was not a contemporary of Jesus.

By your own post you show he wasn't even born until some twenty years after Jesus was executed.

Christianity had obviously spread to Rome by 120 A.D.

[Djinn]

218. didn't study history did you

a "contemporary" means around at the same time - both these quotes come from people who were merely quoting the beliefs of certain people at a certain time.

If I write down that the Egyptians worshipped Ra but have no evidence of Ra's existence then my writing prooves nothing more than that people worshipped him/her/it

[clidaw]

258. That isn't the full quotation from Josephus.

This is the actual quote:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN, for he was a doer of wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

The information in caps are considered interpolations by the vast majority of scholars. What you quoted is the version that many think might be real. There are many people who think the entire thing is a product of Eusebius, a Christian historian who wanted to convince Constantine that Christianity was the way to go. This quote is not used by anyone until Eusebius (early 4th century), making it very suspicious.

In short, you cannot use this as definite evidence for the existance of Jesus.

[HANKrearden]

214. BEST MOVIE

dude, im jewish and i enjoyed it, it totally walks all over F911, and it is a powerful tool for the religious right

[DrWeird]

215. But Jesus was a liberal.

He said rich people, like republicans, go to hell.

So how is it a tool for the religious right?

[Cronus Protagonist]

219. ummm it has NOTIHNG to do with Farenheit 9/11

Not even the same genre. As for using it as a tool, BRING IT ON! Show clips of it in Republican ads on TV. Put it on billboards! Come on! Bring it on, dude :)

You might be a Republican if...
http://cronus.com/quiz

Commentary by a Republican...
http://cronus.com/republican

The REAL Republican Platform...
http://cronus.com/platform

Bush's Illustrated Resume
http://cronus.com/bushresume

Isn't That Strange?
http://cronus.com/oil

:)

[Vickers]

228. A jewish valley boy?

Man, ain't I seen it all!

:toast:

Welcome to DU!

[flaminbats]

224. Did God approve of his son's last thoughts?

What will the sequel be called...for the love of God or Guilt of Holy Ghost?

[Cronus Protagonist]

225. The Second Coming

.. of course :)


http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[flaminbats]

226. lol..

ohhh lucifer, you shouldn't have! :evilgrin:

[Politicub]

237. I grew up in a fundie household

And to this day I don't see how a Deity's suffering amounts to a sacrifice. Maybe I have a stone heart or something, but no amount of suffering that a god, or a god who becomes man, goes through just doesn't convince me of anything. I guess you have to believe the literal translation of the bible to groove on someone coming back from the dead more than the suffering part.

So what was the point of Mel's movie again?

[Irishladdie]

239. Did you notice all of the scriptural errors?

[hippiegranny]

249. i know how it ends

so i don't have to watch it.

[Name removed]

252. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bertha Venation]

253. Did you also buy Pascal's Wager?

I'm curious.

[Name removed]

255. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bertha Venation]

256. Pascal's Wager in short:

"If there is no God, it doesn't matter what you bet: you are worm food either way. If there is a God, and you believe, then you go to heaven; and you don't believe, you go to hell." *

I didn't see the film and don't plan to. I understand its value to evangelical and/or fundamentalist Christians. But I have no more interest in seeing such suffering as I do of watching videotapes of the Russian school hostage debacle or loops of the Twin Towers falling.

I know suffering exists. I understand its meaning to mankind. I don't have to see it to know and understand.

* edit: forgot to credit my source, which explained it better than I could in the limited time I have: http://www.jhuger.com/pascal.mv

[Name removed]

257. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cronus Protagonist]

261. Watch out, you're projecting

Just a friendly word of advice.

http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/obgyn.htm

[Bertha Venation]

262. "Lighten up."

I don't think so. It's not the time to lighten up.

Your mileage may vary -- and apparently, it does.

TTFN.

[Name removed]

264. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bertha Venation]

266. Well, he surely didn't last long.

Too bad I missed his last message. I'd've enjoyed incinerating him. :shrug:

[Misunderestimator]

267. I was having fun with him on a few other threads...

Those freeps really need to change their cologne... you can smell 'em a mile away. :hi:

[Slappy]

268. How were you having fun

You knew he would be banned. He liked a movie. So what. What are you so afraid of that you ban someone with a different opinion.

You were not going to incinerate anyone by the way. This is a discussion forum not a boxing ring. And it is a discussion forum that bans people with a slightly different point of view so in essence it isn't really a discussion forum at all. It is a place to preach to the choir.


Incinerate...ha...that is funny stuff.

[Misunderestimator]

269. Ok... you are definitely Striker Lestat .

[Bertha Venation]

271. As transparent as George W. Bush's Christianity.

:hi: Mis.

[Misunderestimator]

272. Exactly!

:hi: BV

[Misunderestimator]

270. He's baaaaa... aaaack

LOL

Gotta try to be less obvious friend.

[Bertha Venation]

273. "so afraid of that you ban someone with a different opinion" -- ANSWERS!

1. Nothing.

2. WE ban no one. The Admins do.

3. The Admins own the forum. It is their right as owners to ban whoever breaks their rules. (You did read the rules before you signed up, right? You know that part where you have to accept the rules? Did you lie?)

4. If you think DU is merely a place to preach to the choir, you haven't been paying attention.

5. If you think DU is the only discussion board that bans people for what you think is small reason, check out Free Republic.

TTFN.

[Zhade]

274. Have you seen "The Passion of the Jew"?

</South Park>

[norml]

279. You mean The Bashin Of The Christ,don't you?

It was on the TV in the video store. Jesus looked like a meatloaf,with ketchup on it.

[lovuian]

280. Did Anyone Notice Mel portrayed Mary Magdelene as a

adulteress and a fallen woman where the crowd were in the process of stoning her

I'm very angry at Mel for portaying her like that

when they is absolutely know evidence

He did it subtly but it was there

:argh: