# OT: Passion of the Christ.



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Alright, who's seen it?

I went last night and have decided that they should name it:

"Excruciatingly long, painful, sadistic Beatdown of the Christ"

Very literal translation of the bible from the many gospels though. 

It wasn't bad, mind you. Although it is evident that Mel LOVE him some stop-motion/matrix cinematography. 

Satan and all the little demons were a little much for me, but overall I liked it. 

It was quite powerful, whether or not you believe in the Christ figure.

Play.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> Alright, who's seen it?
> 
> I went last night and have decided that they should name it:
> ...


I'm glad that you were _compelled_ to go.  

I'll be going Saturday with my church group. From what I hear, it's been widely acclaimed.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

*Re: Re: OT: Passion of the Christ.*



> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> I'm glad that you were _compelled_ to go.


Of course I went. This is a controversial movie and it is about one of our foremost spiritual leaders. 

No compelling needed.

I actually enjoyed it and will own it on DVD.

Not nearly as thought provoking as "The Last Temptation of Christ"... but much more watchable. 



> I'll be going Saturday with my church group. From what I hear, it's been widely acclaimed.


Did you hear about the preacher who spent his LIFE SAVINGS on tickets. He is giving them away so people will see the movie. 

Oh well. I guess my paycheck will have to support another. 

Play.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Our Pastor saw an advance screening of it a few weeks ago, and highly recommends it. He say's it is rated R for "realisitic".

Most Christian groups feel that it does and will show people the actual suffering that Jesus was put through, which is far worse than moving pictures has portrayed to date. 

I'll be going to it soon.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> Our Pastor saw an advance screening of it a few weeks ago, and highly recommends it. He say's it is rated R for "realisitic".
> 
> Most Christian groups feel that it does and will show people the actual suffering that Jesus was put through, which is far worse than moving pictures has portrayed to date.
> ...


The worst scene is the flogging. There is one point where you just cringe.

But, I am not sure how "REALISTIC" it is. 

There are a couple of things that Melly Mel put in there that I don't remember being part of the Bible or part of the suffering.

After seeing it, I am not sure how people would want to turn on the Jews ... like people were afraid would happen.

The Romans didn't want to do it (according to the Gospels) ... but MAN ... they inflicted it.

Play


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> Alright, who's seen it?
> 
> I went last night and have decided that they should name it:
> ...


Here are some other suggested titles:

The Passion: Ow...! Jesus Christ! That Hurts! 
Lethal Jesus: The Double Cross.
Lethal Jesus: That's Funny, You Don't Look Savior-ish
Lethal Jesus: 2 Fast 2 Jewish
Jesus Christ, Superhype
Pop 'n' Lock Jesus: Electric Messiah
Passion: A Date with Lethal Jesus
Jesus Christ: Jerusalem Nights
The Passion: God Money I'll Do Anything For You
Crouching Jesus, Hidden Agenda
Jesus Christ--Beat Me, Hurt Me, Make Me Recite the Psalms
Jesus Christ: Aramaic Graffiti
Jesus Christ: We Were Saviors Once...And Hung
Jesus Christ: 8 Simple Rules About Crucifying My Savior

(From tbogg, who also reports on a kinky new fashion...)

(Oh yeah, and apparently this film is not too good for your health. Think God's trying to send a message?)


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> The worst scene is the flogging. There is one point where you just cringe.


I wouldn't doubt it...

From: CNN.com



> ....Playing Jesus meant a world of torment for Jim Caviezel, who stars in Mel Gibson's ferociously violent "The Passion of the Christ."
> 
> Caviezel dangled nearly naked on a cross in bone-chilling winds through weeks of filming. He was struck by lightning during a recreation of the Sermon on the Mount. An actor playing a Roman torturer cut a 14-inch gash in Caviezel's back during scenes of Christ's scourging.
> 
> He dislocated his shoulder carrying the cross, caught pneumonia and a lung infection, endured cuts, scrapes and backaches from the chains he bore.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: OT: Passion of the Christ.*



> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> 
> 
> Here are some other suggested titles:
> ...


Hmmm..I'm not sure that trying to poke fun at peoples faith is a good thing for this forum.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

ACtually it's always baffled me why people who are not religious find it their duty to belittle those who are. Great touch of class, and dignity.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

I saw it too.

Amazing-simply amazing. I was OK until Jesus spoke to his mother and said "Behold, I make all things new".

I am glad someone at least tried to show how brutal the entire ordeal was from his capture to the crucifixion. The movie probably barely touched the truth-consider that.

I thought the supernatural part of christianity was handled pretty well. The splitting of the temple is the key to everything. 

I had heard it said once that all the nice clean crucifixes and crosses we see simply do not reflect the reality of the sacrifice...

I left feeling pretty much speechless.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> ACtually it's always baffled me why people who are not religious find it their duty to belittle those who are. Great touch of class, and dignity.


I'm with you on this one. I am pretty much not involved with any religion, and I have no problem with what other people choose to do on the subject. However, a lot of people I know who are also not religious often rip on religion like it's the dumbest thing in the world. I always just roll me eyes and shake my head at that.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> 
> 
> I wouldn't doubt it...
> ...


Sheesus. 

I guess playing Jesus isn't the role of a lifetime.

Play.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>:
> The movie probably barely touched the truth-consider that.


Sounds like many people agree with you on that one:



> An interfaith panel of eight Christian and Jewish clergy members and laypeople who gathered to watch "The Passion of the Christ" on Monday night admitted they had very different expectations for it....
> But after the showing, in a late-night discussion around a table at the First United Methodist Church at the Chicago Temple, the panel members were in full agreement: they were disturbed by what they had seen. They said the movie — which was produced, directed and largely financed by the actor Mel Gibson — <b>deviated in bizarre ways from the Gospel accounts</b>, fell flat emotionally and was numbingly violent.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> I saw it too.
> 
> Amazing-simply amazing. I was OK until Jesus spoke to his mother and said "Behold, I make all things new".
> ...


Sick to my stomach more like it.

It was VERY powerful.

I had a dream once when I was a kid that I was a part of the crowd that watched Jesus drag the cross. 

I remember that I was a woman and that we caught eyes. I felt ashamed. It was such a vivid dream, I can remember what I was wearing. What it looked like. Everything. 

Anyhow, since then the Jesus "walk" has always held great power over me and I was brought close to tears as I watched him walk. 

Play.
Play.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

meh--I don't see the big deal. I thought that meru's list was actually pretty funny, especially the Lethal Jesus ones.

you have to admit, it IS pretty weird to think an Australian who once jumped off an exploding toilett, defeated Master Blaster and flew Air America is now documenting the last ten hours of the life of Jesus. 

however, I don't want to get caught up in a thread that goes on for 15 pages and debates the merits of subjective and objective evil. I respect every religion, race, creed and (non-Laker) basketball fan equally, and humbly apologize to anyone for everything bad I've ever done, said or thought. 

*shuffles quietly away, eyes darting back and forth*


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> ACtually it's always baffled me why people who are not religious find it their duty to belittle those who are. Great touch of class, and dignity.


Yeah, but you guys'll get the last laugh in heaven, right? And after all, if The Passion of the Christ teaches us anything, it's that you've gotta suffer a little in this life.

Besides which, who's belittling a religion? I was just belittling a dumb movie.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> meh--I don't see the big deal. I thought that meru's list was actually pretty funny, especially the Lethal Jesus ones.
> 
> you have to admit, it IS pretty weird to think an Australian who once jumped off an exploding toilett, defeated Master Blaster and flew Air America is now documenting the last ten hours of the life of Jesus.
> ...


I think we have had our fill on that subject, man.

If not ... go to OT: Bush ....

I think this thread is just about the movie itself and people's response to it.

(I too thought the list funny, but could see someone taking offense to it)

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, but you guys'll get the last laugh in heaven, right? And after all, if The Passion of the Christ teaches us anything, it's that you've gotta suffer a little in this life.
> ...


The movie wasn't "dumb" per se. Have you seen it?

It was just ... as NYT said "devoid of emotion". 

If you haven't read the gospels it might be a little difficult to figure out the players and why they act the way they do. 

It was violent to a point and I don't think it always added to it. Of course, Melly Mel said the movie was MORE for himself and HIS demons then for us.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

*Re: Re: OT: Passion of the Christ.*



> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> 
> (From tbogg, who also reports on a kinky new fashion...)


Hey, I think the nail is kind of cool. 

I'm not even religious or anything, but it looks pretty cool.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>:
> 
> The movie wasn't "dumb" per se. Have you seen it?


I admit I haven't. I'm waiting for it to come to the dollar theatre. With any luck it'll be a double bill with "Life of Brian". Now THAT'S realism.



> If you haven't read the gospels it might be a little difficult to figure out the players and why they act the way they do.


I haven't read them. I have seen them in Lego, though.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> 
> 
> I admit I haven't. I'm waiting for it to come to the dollar theatre. With any luck it'll be a double bill with "Life of Brian". Now THAT'S realism.
> ...


I read the Lego version too.

Go check out:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Pretty funny stuff. You might like it. 

It is literally the Bible, with side comments on errata or just stuff that is wrong or absurd. 

Play.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

you know...the term "they do not know" is taking a whole new meaning.

I thought respect was a noble cause? It seems sorely lacking today.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>:
> 
> Go check out:
> http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
> Pretty funny stuff. You might like it.


Know it well. For a more, um, visceral experience, check out NormalBob Smith. Now there's one disaffected ex-believer.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> you know...the term "they do not know" is taking a whole new meaning.
> 
> I thought respect was a noble cause? It seems sorely lacking today.


I am not trying to show a lack of respect. 

I am just talking in general. 

I have respect for those who follow the Bible, as long as they don't thrust it at me and tell me how wrong I am. 

Anyhow, I apologize if you feel I was being crude to you. I do not intend it to be so.

Play.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> I am not trying to show a lack of respect.
> ...


Let me be clear-you are. So is Meru.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>:
> you know...the term "they do not know" is taking a whole new meaning.


...uh, okay. Not a particularly <i>distinctive</i> phrase you've got there. Were you thinking of "they know not what they do"?



> I thought respect was a noble cause? It seems sorely lacking today.


I didn't know respect was a cause at all. Good song though. I can't decide if Aretha's or Otis's version is better.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Actually meru is proving to be blatantly disrespoectful. I haven't seen anyone throw a bible in any ones face. But I have seen someone go out of their way to try and offend people who do have religion as a part of their lives.

BTW I don't know a single Christian who feels they will be "laughing" at non-believers from heaven. If you belive in the bible and what Christianity teaches, then there is no sin in heaven, therefore the concept of mocking does not exist once a person passes into heaven.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

We're deviating, folks......


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> 
> 
> ...uh, okay. Not a particularly <i>distinctive</i> phrase you've got there. Were you thinking of "they know not what they do"?
> ...


I will ask one simple question and be done with it.

What's your point?


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

For those who are getting offended, let's remember this:

you're attempting to discuss your spirituality on a basketball message board. On a topic where everyone has their own opinion, don't expect to have a respectful chat.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>tblazrdude</b>!
> For those who are getting offended, let's remember this:
> 
> you're attempting to discuss your spirituality on a basketball message board. On a topic where everyone has their own opinion, don't expect to have a respectful chat.


Yeah, I've been debating whether I should just ahead and lock 'er up - just to spare the inevitable.....


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, I've been debating whether I should just ahead and lock 'er up - just to spare the inevitable.....


I wouldn't say that's necessary; I'm quite anti-censorship on here. I just think people need to have a little more realistic expectations entering this thread.

BTW, my 2 cents:

The fact that there is a jewelry line and the way they are marketing this movie makes me want to vomit.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

if you allow yourself to be offended by someones beliefs, then you are just as responsible for the offensive material, as the person who is offending you.

You know, like if ABM all the sudden started spouting about stuff I don't agree with (or think he's wrong about) so what? there are a lot of things religious (and *non* reliigous) people do that could offend me..but you know what?

so what? Big deal. To some people who aren't religious, it's offensive to have religion crammed down their throats. Now granted, people who ARE religious don't see it that way, but it can be percieved that way. 

Some people are just over senstative (and some people are just over confrontational) when it comes to this. You can have a sense of humor about religion (or you shuold be able to..I'd surely hate to not be able to laugh at some of the jokes that are made about religious and non religious people..some of them are funny).

In the grand scheme of things, what meru said was somewhat funny. Mocking the title of the movie is funny. 

like, "Jesus Christ superstar"...Thats a good movie..but if SNL did a skit on it, it would be funny. 

who here hasn't mocked the title of a movie? Was Mel Brooks joke about how moses came down to the people, and how it was originally 15..and he dropped one of the tablets...was that offensive? Or was it funny? why was that not offensive? He's mocking religion..that should be offensive to people, right?

Why wouldn't it be?

Because it was *funny*. You can laugh at what people say about religion (or politics) even if you don't agree with their thinking.


----------



## blazerfan4life (Dec 31, 2002)

ONLY here can we talk about BUSH & GAYS...THE BLAZERS....And now JESUS...:laugh: 

For those who said that the movie was boring..i am sure what was happening to JESUS wasn't a party...now do i believe that there is a GOD..JESUS and etc....well with my illness you bet i do believe...i think there is more to this life then what we can see...i mean people talk about NDE and that they felt GOD and/or JESUS on the other side..people pray and they get healed so if they are praying they must be praying to someone...and for those who do believe if thats how they feel great and for those who don't believe thats ok too...i for one do believe and will i go see the movie..i am still thinking on that one..now i would like to go see what the last hours of JESUS was like so i might go


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>tblazrdude</b>!
> For those who are getting offended, let's remember this:
> 
> you're attempting to discuss your spirituality on a basketball message board. On a topic where everyone has their own opinion, don't expect to have a respectful chat.


I am offended, not at the mockery of a religion, but at the intent of the poster. I feel the poster's intent was to offend, and on a forum board that is not appropriate.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> Because it was *funny*. You can laugh at what people say about religion (or politics) even if you don't agree with their thinking.


Funny is the operative word here. It simply isn't funny.

I can admit I was harsh on Playmaker and Meru (guys-I apologize), it was a knee jerk reaction and one that I will also admit is not "christ-like" as I am taught to be. Bottom line is we are all human and stuff like this happens no matter how wise we are to it.

It's part of what makes being a christian so hard. We are commanded to act one way (turn the other cheek) but we are human and have human emotions-such as anger..when we are unable to keep it in check we end up setting a bad example and then most of us suffer guilt because of it.

So...again, I am sorry to all I barked at and yes, I feel bad about it because it is the very behavior that Jesus tries so hard to teach us not to show.

I feel like Paul right now.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>tblazrdude</b>!
> 
> 
> I wouldn't say that's necessary; I'm quite anti-censorship on here. I just think people need to have a little more realistic expectations entering this thread.
> ...


2000 years worth of people making money off of religion.

doesn't surprise me.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>:
> Actually meru is proving to be blatantly disrespoectful. I haven't seen anyone throw a bible in any ones face. But I have seen someone go out of their way to try and offend people who do have religion as a part of their lives.


Schilly, you must have blinders on. You've never seen anyone "throw a bible in any one's face"? Well, maybe not literally. But did you see those people lying in the doorway of the city hall in SF singing hymns, blocking the way of people wanting to get married? What's that? And if I hear the word "sanctity" used one more time in connection with either marriage or life, I may puke.

And as to "offending" you - is this the political correctness I keep hearing Rush Limbaugh talk about? Can't I make fun of a movie made by a not-too-bright and rather paranoid Australian with a bordering-on-sado-masochistic taste for violence without people getting all preachy?



> BTW I don't know a single Christian who feels they will be "laughing" at non-believers from heaven. If you belive in the bible and what Christianity teaches, then there is no sin in heaven, therefore the concept of mocking does not exist once a person passes into heaven.


According to the great Calvinist leader Jonathan Edwards, it was the DUTY of Christians to exult in the suffering of those damned in Hell, and the Angels were doing it too. It's not necessarily "mocking" it's just getting a righteous old kick out of it. And besides, if it's God's will that us unbelievers be poked by pitchforks and roasted on spits for all eternity, who are you to question that decision?

Oh, and regarding your other "simple question" post - I didn't really have a point. Except, for an influential majority with a lot of political clout and a purported belief that this life is but an umimportant blip on the way to an eternity in heaven, religious types are awfully thin-skinned.

Oh, and in an attempt to make this topic (which I didn't start) vaguely basketball-related: anyone ever heard of an overtly atheist athlete? Strikes me that atheists feel they have to be as closeted as gays in American sports.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

well said, Hap. 

ABM-- people are posting on the thread and nobody (IMO) has made any personal remarks (aka--"You are stupid"). if Christians are offended by the flippancy of heathens, it's their job as Christians to a) turn the other cheek and b) show the heathens the error in their ways. it's what Christ would do. 

locking these types of threads doesn't solve anything and actually makes for a less lively board. IMO, you should only lock a thread if you are spending vast amounts of your time trying to clean up personal attacks, swearing, etc, or if a thread is mislabeled.

my two cents.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> 
> 
> Schilly, you must have blinders on. You've never seen anyone "throw a bible in any one's face"? Well, maybe not literally. But did you see those people lying in the doorway of the city hall in SF singing hymns, blocking the way of people wanting to get married? What's that? And if I hear the word "sanctity" used one more time in connection with either marriage or life, I may puke.
> ...


I didn't see it happen on this thread. As for the other stuff :shrug: to each his own. I have better things to do than fight with someone who is trying hard to keep it rolling.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> Oh, and in an attempt to make this topic (which I didn't start) vaguely basketball-related: anyone ever heard of an overtly atheist athlete? Strikes me that atheists feel they have to be as closeted as gays in American sports.


Annika Sorenstam is an athiest.

Woohoo! Score one for us, eh meru?


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> 
> I am offended, not at the mockery of a religion, but at the intent of the poster. I feel the poster's intent was to offend, and on a forum board that is not appropriate.


let's remember that in terms of communication, the medium is often the message. An internet forum, specifically one discussing something such as sports, is not a venue where you will ever find thoughtful argumentative debate on religion. Expecting that, while hopeful, is also slightly naive.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>tblazrdude</b>!
> 
> 
> let's remember that in terms of communication, the medium is often the message. An internet forum, specifically one discussing something such as sports, is not a venue where you will ever find thoughtful argumentative debate. Expecting that, while hopeful, is also slightly naive.


Thank you.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>:
> 
> Annika Sorenstam is an athiest.
> Woohoo! Score one for us, eh meru?


Gotta love those wacky Swedes!

How did you know, though? When did this come up? "Not only does this uppity woman want to play in a man's tournament, but she's an atheist as well!"?

I would've bet Bison Dele was one, except that he was probably a new-age Pantheist type... And Rodman, of course, is a Satanist.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

For those of you not within driving distance to a thriving abattoir, this film may be your only chance to delight in this many quarts of gushing blood, while still skirting criminal arraignment. As a Baptist, I don't often find myself promoting R-rated films, but I'm proud that I live in a country where witnessing two hours of bloody, barbarous torture in gloating detail is considered indicia of religious piety, whereas a mere second gazing upon a woman's breast is cause for outraged apoplexy.

Question: did any of you buy popcorn while watching Jesus get tortured by daddy? I guess god had to kill himself to appease himself so that he wouldn't have to torture us, his beloved creation in hell for eternity. Now THAT'S amazing grace.:grinning:


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> 
> 
> ABM-- people are posting on the thread and nobody (IMO) has made any personal remarks (aka--"You are stupid").......my two cents.


I've been _around_ long enough to know that things can get out of hand. I wasn't "literally" considering locking the thread - just letting everyone know that, at least, I'm here.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> 
> just letting everyone know that, at least, I'm here.


Just like God...you're always there? :uhoh:


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Just like God...you're always there? :uhoh:


:laugh: 

I think I'll rent _Bruce Almighty_. I haven't seen it yet.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> Gotta love those wacky Swedes!
> 
> How did you know, though? When did this come up? "Not only does this uppity woman want to play in a man's tournament, but she's an atheist as well!"?
> ...


http://www.celebatheists.com/


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Yega1979</b>!
> For those of you not within driving distance to a thriving abattoir, this film may be your only chance to delight in this many quarts of gushing blood, while still skirting criminal arraignment. As a Baptist, I don't often find myself promoting R-rated films, but I'm proud that I live in a country where witnessing two hours of bloody, barbarous torture in gloating detail is considered indicia of religious piety, whereas a mere second gazing upon a woman's breast is cause for outraged apoplexy.


It's called context.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

*An Aramaic Primer*

This is pretty funny.

Some samples:

B-kheeruut re'yaaneyh laa kaaley tsuuraathaa khteepaathaa, ellaa Zaynaa Mqatlaanaa Trayaanaa laytaw!
It may be uncompromising in its liberal use of graphic violence, but Lethal Weapon II it ain't. 

Da'ek teleyfoon methta'naanaak, pquud. Guudaapaw! 
Please turn off your mobile phone. It is blasphemous. 

Shbuuq shuukhaaraa deel. Man ethnaggad udamshaa?
Sorry I'm late. Have I missed any scourging?


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: An Aramaic Primer*



> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> This is pretty funny.
> 
> Some samples:
> ...


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

My self personally, I don't subscribe to any religion.

Now, that doesn't mean I don't believe in god, or whatever, but that doesn't mean I do either.

I don't have any problem with people for choosing to believe in something, but the only time I get upset is when they try to cram it down my throat. Like those people that come up to my door trying to sell me their religion. No thank you.

People ask me, "Well, what do you believe in?" I simply say, "I'd rather worry about other stuff then who created this or that."

Like I said, I have no problem with religion, or people believing in what they believe in. Just don't force it upon me, and everyone will be happy.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> well said, Hap.
> 
> ABM-- people are posting on the thread and nobody (IMO) has made any personal remarks (aka--"You are stupid"). if Christians are offended by the flippancy of heathens, it's their job as Christians to a) turn the other cheek and b) show the heathens the error in their ways. it's what Christ would do.
> ...


absolutely 100% agree. 

are you me?

wierd...


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

i told my mom, wife and sister (who are all gung-ho about seeing this movie) that I wasn't interested in watching one of the most brutally vicious movies of all time. I'm not interested in watching Jesus suffer excruciating torture. I'm not interested in watching anyone suffer excruciating torture. 

I'm somewhat amazed that people are all gung ho to watch a gore fest, even if it is a re-enactment of history. I wasn't too thrilled with the opening 45 minutes of Saving Private Ryan either. I wasn't real thrilled watching "Braveheart" either. I'm just not into all the blood, guts and violence in modern movies.

As for the message of the movie, i can get the same message by picking up the New Testament and reading it. I don't need Mel Gibson for that.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

*Scourging a dead horse*

bfan's .sig:


> "This is a movie about love, hope, faith, and forgiveness. He [Yeshua] died for all mankind, suffered for all of us. It's time to get back to that basic message. The world has gone nuts. We could all use a little more love, faith, hope, and forgiveness." --Mel Gibson


"I want to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick. I want to kill his dog." 

---Mel "Prince of Peace" Gibson shows some love, faith, hope and forgiveness.
(link)


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Scourging a dead horse*



> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> bfan's .sig:
> 
> 
> ...


If you get the chance, read the 7th chapter of Romans sometime. Basically, Paul is saying that, without Christ guiding/influencing him (us) on a daily - even hourly - basis, he does what he shouldn't, and doesn't do what he should. That (basically speaking) he ends up cramming his foot in his mouth on a constant basis.

However, at the end of the chapter, he gives dynamic praise to Christ (via the sacrifice Christ made on the cross) for forgiving/saving him and providing the hope to cope in this sin-filled world - and eternal hope beyond.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Well meru I guess you find yourself just poking fun at the words of a stupid actor now, right?

I won't cram the bible down your throat if you won't cram the fact that you find it silly down mine.

Go sit in your philosphy office and realize that god or no god, it doesn't change who you are as a person.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

BTW for someone who hasn't seen the movie and who hasn't read the gospels, I think having such a defined position of mockery really paints us a good picture.

See ya all later, I am going to fly to Chile, a country I know nothing about, and tell them their culture is silly and is nothiong more than an object fo me to mock.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

Meru,

Your actions are reminding me of when I was a teenager. I would grab hold of something like "I want to kill his dog" and use it as an excuse to not give any credence to chritianity. I'd bring to light any action or comment made by a christian (my favorite were the pastors) and I'd say stuff like "yeah, if they were really christians they wouldn't blah blah blah...".

ABM's suggestion to look at the 7th chapter of Romans is good advice. I mean-if you are going to mock then you really should know what you are talking about-otherwise you look a fool.

My mom pointed out to me that my focus was on man. She reminded me that man will always fail you. She reminded me that my eyes needed to focus upward and inward, because this is what is important. It matters not what others do. Everyone will fail-just as Paul describes. 

Being a christian is a process, much like growing up and maturing. Some christians do, some do not. Same with people in general. Some grow up and mature-having learned from their mistakes. Some do not.

SO-I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to be reminded of these things.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

I'd get into this discussion, but I think I might become the most reviled poster in BBB.net history if I do.

:devil: 

I could get into everything everyone has said here and point to contrary scripture or spiritual concepts or even discuss how I interpret Jesus's teachings line for line. 

But, I don't think anyone really reads it. 

Of course, if we really want to debate these things and openly discuss them -- It can be fun and enlightening. I always enjoy learning. 

Anyhow, Meru, poking fun at people's beliefs is probably not a sane way to spend the afternoon. It doesn't benefit you or them. Engage them in open debate and have them back up their ascertations. Then engage them in explaining it. Then follow up your thoughts on it. 

It just isn't right to ridicule them openly and with malice. (now, if they provoked you ... I'd change my tune)

Play.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> I could get into everything everyone has said here and point to contrary scripture or spiritual concepts or even discuss how I interpret Jesus's teachings line for line.


Interesting.

Sure, I'd like to see an _alternative_ view to Romans Chapter 7.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> Meru,
> 
> Your actions are reminding me of when I was a teenager. I would grab hold of something like "I want to kill his dog" and use it as an excuse to not give any credence to chritianity. I'd bring to light any action or comment made by a christian (my favorite were the pastors) and I'd say stuff like "yeah, if they were really christians they wouldn't blah blah blah...".
> ...


Bfan, this is an excellent post...extrememly excellent.

I find that as a person who has only been a Christian for about 5 years, that the daily struggles of my own doubt are one of the most difficult things to deal with...WHy is that? Because it is hard to focus inwardly and aknowledge personal shortcomings or flaws. Of course this is a part of why Jesus died for mankind, so we won't have to carry the burden of ourslves.

BTW for meru I have to apologize. I know the feeling of feeling belittled by religion. about 2 years ago I had become extremely active in our church only to find that our church was infused with politics and pride, which jeopordized the good of the church. 

You can find ugliness and evidence to prove many things if you look hard enough and long enough.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> ...


One thing that has come up in bible discussion I have been in wiht my church group in the past, is how the bible is written for everyone, though it speaks differently to each individual, and in a sense can bear a different meaning to those people. The overall of it is the same, but the message is specific.

How many times have you been sitting in churc listening to the sermon and all of a sudden you wonder if the sermon is driected atr you specifically?


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

*Jeez loo-eez*

Let's take these in order. First <b>ABM</b>:



> If you get the chance, read the 7th chapter of Romans sometime. Basically, Paul is saying that, without Christ guiding/ influencing him (us) on a daily - even hourly - basis, he does what he shouldn't, and doesn't do what he should. That (basically speaking) he ends up cramming his foot in his mouth on a constant basis.
> 
> However, at the end of the chapter, he gives dynamic praise to Christ (via the sacrifice Christ made on the cross) for forgiving/ saving him and providing the hope to cope in this sin-filled world - and eternal hope beyond.


So, if I read you right, this is evidence that Mel isn't being guided by Christ on an hourly basis. Obviously he needs to work a little harder. I somehow doubt that Christ would approve of his fixation on gore (for example, having a crow peck out the eyes of a person on the cross next to Jesus. Where in the Gospels is that mentioned? How am I supposed to get a message of love out of that one?)

When I do have time, I'll check out the chapter you recommend. From what I know of Paul, who seems to be a bit of a mysogynist, I don't know I'll find it that enlightening.

Now it's <b>Schilly</b>'s turn:



> Well meru I guess you find yourself just poking fun at the words of a stupid actor now, right?


That would seem to be the state of play, yes.



> I won't cram the bible down your throat if you won't cram the fact that you find it silly down mine.


1) As you yourself pointed out, I'm just making fun of Mel Gibson. I haven't mentioned the Bible.
2) So therefore I couldn't be cramming the "fact that I find it silly" down your throat. I do not in fact find the Bible silly. A lot of people who profess to believe in it do appear to be silly, but that can be said of many things.
3) Appreciate your not cramming the Bible down my throat, though. Keep that up.



> Go sit in your philosphy office and realize that god or no god, it doesn't change who you are as a person.


I can realize that wherever I'm sitting, thanks. But that does seem to be an odd thing for a religious person to say. I thought you guys thought morality, for one thing, depends on the existence of a god. On that view, if god doesn't exist, then I can't be moral or immoral.



> BTW for meru I have to apologize. I know the feeling of feeling belittled by religion. about 2 years ago I had become extremely active in our church only to find that our church was infused with politics and pride, which jeopordized the good of the church.


Thanks for the apology Schilly, but you really don't need to give it. I'm the one poking fun (although, let me stress again, at a specific film and filmmaker, not at an entire religion). As to feeling "belittled" by religion, I have to confess I've never had that experience. <i>Baffled</i>, maybe.

Next, <b>bfan</b>'s "extremely excellent" post:



> Your actions are reminding me of when I was a teenager. I would grab hold of something like "I want to kill his dog" and use it as an excuse to not give any credence to chritianity. I'd bring to light any action or comment made by a christian (my favorite were the pastors) and I'd say stuff like "yeah, if they were really christians they wouldn't blah blah blah...".


Did your pastor say things like "I want to kill his dog"? Wow, what church did YOU go to? The Church of Tarantino?
But I think you're reading too much into what I'm saying. I'm just pointing out that Mel Gibson is a hypocritical ***. I'm not implying that that precludes him from being a Christian. (I think I'll just leave it at that.)



> SO-I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to be reminded of these things.


Hey - no problem. I'm here for you, man.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> ...


I can do that and I can further show the errancy contained inside of it, but I don't see the point. 

We all know the Bible was written ambiguously. Nothing is solid and no truth, except for what that truth means to you, can be extrapolated.

That is the beauty of the document and why it has lasted over time. 

Play.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> I can do that and I can further show the errancy contained inside of it, but I don't see the point.


Nonetheless, I'd still be very curious as to your interpretations on this portion of scripture. I've certainly been intrigued by your forthrightness in many of your other post offerings. As such, you've piqued my interested regarding your thoughts here...

Thanks.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> 
> Did your pastor say things like "I want to kill his dog"? Wow, what church did YOU go to? The Church of Tarantino?
> But I think you're reading too much into what I'm saying. I'm just pointing out that Mel Gibson is a hypocritical ***. I'm not implying that that precludes him from being a Christian. (I think I'll just leave it at that.)


It makes no matter what was said. You have missed the entire point. 

Again-look at Romans 7 about behavior not reflecting your heart. I won't argue that this was a dumb thing for Mel to say. It was. He now has the extra burden of having his every word scrutinized. 

As for the "gore fest"...it should be said that Gibson went LIGHTLY on the gore. If you take a good hard look into a crucifixion it was surely much worse. The extra brutality done to Jesus was extensive. The criminals in the movie were barely bleeding to show this.

Are bloodless crucifixes more acceptable? Perhaps seeing the blood is too much? Or-is facing the possible reality that if what is being shown is true-that there are consequences to allowing it all to be in vain? To each their own decision.

Complaining about the blood is really a bit odd when the reality of it is that it was actually quite worse. For example, in the movie there is skin left on Jesus' back...it has been said that there was none left. 

The survival of such brutality all the way to the cross is very telling that he was who he said he was-without that power he never would have made it. In the end-he gave up his spirit when the time had come. He could have done that at anytime but chose not to.

It really is a supernatual story that I think anyone could find quite fascinating. I found the crying out of "evil" very compelling. The curse had been broken-a way out provided...that is what has been so strong on my mind. It all was a sacrifice-a BLOOD sacrifice. That blood is what broke the curse. That blood is what breaks the curse. It is very neccessary for people to understand that.

As for the crow....I think it was symbolic that one thief was "blind" and missed out on salvation, the other could see that Jesus was the Messiah. I think Mel was trying to make that point clear. One thief belonged to satan and the other to God-based on the choices they made while on the crosses.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Jeez loo-eez*



> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> Let's take these in order. First <b>ABM</b>:
> 
> 
> ...


I think you misread Bfan's post. 

As far as the gorefest, Gibsons priority was to depict the reality of these types of events, and they are gruesome. I really am not a fan of gore by any means, but I do appreaciate the aspect of realism, as opposed to the sugarcoated images we have all been privy to in the past. I believe most films that strive for reality in disturbing events of history.

From a history respect the existence of Jesus and his final days is not disputed. IIRC there are Roman records that verify the sequence of events of the actual Crucification of Jesus.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Okay, I'm going to make this my last post on this subject, because it's taking up WAY too much of my time. But this post is just too... interesting not to respond to:



> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> Again-look at Romans 7 about behavior not reflecting your heart. I won't argue that this was a dumb thing for Mel to say. It was. He now has the extra burden of having his every word scrutinized.


Let's hope his $100 million opening weekend helps him bear it.
But since you keep wittering on about Romans 7, let's have a look at it.

Let's see:


> 7:2
> For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
> 7:3
> So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that
> law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.


Apparently divorce isn't too highly thought of.



> 7:13
> Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.


Whuh? I've made my way through some thorny passages in my time, but I defy any layperson to get a single clear interpretation out of this business. As far as I can gather there is no sin unless there is law. Fair enough, I guess.
Now, I'm guessing that you and ABM get a lot out of 7:14ish onwards, which seems to be saying that the flesh is evil, or at least, not possibly good (7:18 "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.") but the mind can follow the law of God (7:26). Not sure I read your message of behaviour not reflecting your heart, unless you mean that your behaviour is necessarily controlled by the flesh but your "heart" is your mind. Sounds like a cop-out to me. Another interpretation would be the old Aristotelian one that we have bodily drives (lusts and so on) that pull us one way, and we should, if we are virtuous, know our own weaknesses (hello, Bill Bennett) and avoid actions that are going to provide temptations. But again, isn't it your duty to know your own weaknesses? That doesn't mean that you haven't done anything wrong when you act astray, it just means it was to be expected of weak humans. So I guess you're saying it's no surprise that Mel is a hypocritical SOB because he's human. Fair enough, but again, in that case, I'm inclined not to look to him for religious insight.



> As for the "gore fest"...it should be said that Gibson went LIGHTLY on the gore. If you take a good hard look into a crucifixion it was surely much worse.


And you know this because....? You've done extensive research into the practice of crucifixion in first-century Palestine. As far as I know, crucified people (of which there were probably thousands, as it was a very common method of execution - see Spartacus) died because they dehydrated. I can think of a lot worse fates. (Like being drawn and quartered, for example. Or having your children murdered in front of you. Or any number of things that happen to people every day in this world.)
Perhaps you were talking about what allegedly happened to Jesus besides being crucified:



> The extra brutality done to Jesus was extensive. The criminals in the movie were barely bleeding to show this.


I believe somebody mentioned that it says something about scourging too. Does it go into all the detail about shards of metal in the whips? Not according to many religious commentators.



> Are bloodless crucifixes more acceptable? Perhaps seeing the blood is too much? Or-is facing the possible reality that if what is being shown is true-that there are consequences to allowing it all to be in vain? To each their own decision.


I'm all in favour of realism, if I knew what reality was like back then. I have very little faith that Gibson, given the mistakes he supposedly makes about other things (for example Greek was more likely to have been the main language spoken, or so I've heard) and his well-known taste for violence (when he took control of the movie Payback, he added extra-scenes of violence to his character, and movies like Braveheart and The Patriot are awash in gore) made a good faith effort to find out. He wants Christ to suffer as graphically as possible. And I guess I don't see the point. After all, what Jesus said more important than how he died? Because after all, if you believe that Jesus IS God, then what kind of sacrifice did he make? He DIDN'T really die. He suffered briefly (but again, nowhere near as much as thousands upon thousands of humans have - Saddam Hussein's victims, for example) and then he gets to go to heaven. He doesn't even have to DOUBT he's going to heaven, he KNOWS. What Gibson has done is direct Mad Max only without Max Max taking revenge. So we get to see Jesus cruelly tortured and killed, and then the movie ends. And we're supposed to come out of it all filled with love?



> The survival of such brutality all the way to the cross is very telling that he was who he said he was-without that power he never would have made it. In the end-he gave up his spirit when the time had come. He could have done that at anytime but chose not to.


Hmm. That's interpretation on your part. People are capable of superhuman efforts without being superhuman. And that's assuming the accounts are reliable. But again, what determines "when the time had come"? If it's miraculous that he lasted that long, why not last a bit longer? If there's no point to lasting longer, why last that long? I don't get it.



> It really is a supernatual story that I think anyone could find quite fascinating. I found the crying out of "evil" very compelling. The curse had been broken-a way out provided...that is what has been so strong on my mind. It all was a sacrifice-a BLOOD sacrifice. That blood is what broke the curse. That blood is what breaks the curse. It is very neccessary for people to understand that.


...which is a shame, because as far as I'm concerned, you've gone off the deep end here. Curse? Sounds awfully pagan to me. And all that blood stuff gives me the willies. (If flesh is sinful is blood sinful too? Or does that rule only apply to mortals? Paul isn't too clear about that.)



> As for the crow....I think it was symbolic that one thief was "blind" and missed out on salvation, the other could see that Jesus was the Messiah. I think Mel was trying to make that point clear. That one thief belonged to satan and the other to God-based on the choices they made while on the crosses.


Wow. So if somebody gets decapitated, I guess that proves that they weren't <i>thinking</i> hard enough. Or, I guess Mel could've added a good heart-gouging scene (a la Indiana Jones II) which would've meant that he didn't have Jesus in his heart? Ah, the hermeneutics of horror.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> We all know the Bible was written ambiguously.


I know nothing of the fact. Years of personal study and academic study (seminary, etc.) have led me to believe that the "majors" of the Bible are incredibly clear and concrete.

There are a number of "minors" that lead themselves to various interpretations. That's all good and well. I can disagree with another believer on the minors while still agreeing on the majors.




> Nothing is solid and no truth, except for what that truth means to you, can be extrapolated.
> 
> That is the beauty of the document and why it has lasted over time.


Wow. To me, the beauty of the Bible is that it contains so much truth - about this world, about myself, about those around me. Which reinforces my belief that it also contains truth about the nature of God.

Interesting, isn't it? We read the same document and see it so differently.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

just to clarify what we are referring toaul speaking.

Romans 7:14-25

Struggling with Sin

14The law is good, then. The trouble is not with the law but with me, because I am sold into slavery, with sin as my master. 15I don't understand myself at all, for I really want to do what is right, but I don't do it. Instead, I do the very thing I hate. 16I know perfectly well that what I am doing is wrong, and my bad conscience shows that I agree that the law is good. 17But I can't help myself, because it is sin inside me that makes me do these evil things.
18I know I am rotten through and through so far as my old sinful nature is concerned. No matter which way I turn, I can't make myself do right. I want to, but I can't. 19When I want to do good, I don't. And when I try not to do wrong, I do it anyway. 20But if I am doing what I don't want to do, I am not really the one doing it; the sin within me is doing it.
21It seems to be a fact of life that when I want to do what is right, I inevitably do what is wrong. 22I love God's law with all my heart. 23But there is another law at work within me that is at war with my mind. This law wins the fight and makes me a slave to the sin that is still within me. 24Oh, what a miserable person I am! Who will free me from this life that is dominated by sin?[3] 25Thank God! The answer is in Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 8:2-11

2For the power[1] of the life-giving Spirit has freed you[2] through Christ Jesus from the power of sin that leads to death. 3The law of Moses could not save us, because of our sinful nature. But God put into effect a different plan to save us. He sent his own Son in a human body like ours, except that ours are sinful. God destroyed sin's control over us by giving his Son as a sacrifice for our sins. 4He did this so that the requirement of the law would be fully accomplished for us[3] who no longer follow our sinful nature but instead follow the Spirit.
5Those who are dominated by the sinful nature think about sinful things, but those who are controlled by the Holy Spirit think about things that please the Spirit. 6If your sinful nature controls your mind, there is death. But if the Holy Spirit controls your mind, there is life and peace. 7For the sinful nature is always hostile to God. It never did obey God's laws, and it never will. 8That's why those who are still under the control of their sinful nature can never please God.
9But you are not controlled by your sinful nature. You are controlled by the Spirit if you have the Spirit of God living in you. (And remember that those who do not have the Spirit of Christ living in them are not Christians at all.) 10Since Christ lives within you, even though your body will die because of sin, your spirit is alive[4] because you have been made right with God. 11The Spirit of God, who raised Jesus from the dead, lives in you. And just as he raised Christ from the dead, he will give life to your mortal body by this same Spirit living within you.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

Can I throw in my two cents regarding the gore in the movie?

I remember watching Schindler's List for the first time. I was horrified at the depiction of how the Jews were treated by the Nazis. Perhaps my own German heritage played some part in this. But I remember thinking, "They deserve punishment." Sin, evil deeds, inhuman behavior - whatever label you want to put on it - deserves punishment. The more vile the behavior, the greater the punishment. This is a natural feeling for me and (judging from thousands of conversations I've had in my life) seems to be shared by most others.

I also remember watching an episode of the Real World Los Angeles. David, the comedian, had just committed the act that would eventually get him kicked out. The girls in the house were of one mind - David should leave. One of the other guys asked one of the girls what would satisfy her in this issue. Her answer? "That he is punished in some way for what he did."

Finally (bear with me, I'm getting to where all this rambling leads) I've had numerous conversations with men and women who carry an immense sense of guilt and/or shame. They carry a burden (not unlike Robert DeNiro's character in the movie The Mission) of their past - some thing(s) that they've done, said, or believed. They cannot accept forgiveness because they feel that there has never been appropriate punishment for their action.

This, I believe, is one of the powerful messages of Jesus' death. God didn't just say to us, "Ahhh...what you've done is no big deal. I forgive you." No, what he says is, "What you've done IS a big deal. It deserves a BIG punishment." But the good news is that Jesus took that big punishment on himself. In this sense, there is no such thing as "cheap grace". Allowing us to experience grace cost Jesus plenty.

Therefore, when Jesus said, "It is finished." as he expired, he meant it. I don't have to torture myself about my mistakes - because he was tortured for them. It's not that there was no price to be paid - it's that it already was paid in full, and I don't have to carry the emotional burden of worrying about how I can pay for it. It raises my gratitude immensely to understand what Jesus went through for me, and for all of mankind.

That's the place that a film such as this can have. I think it's potentially a great help emotionally to those carrying the burden of guilt and shame. As adults (I wouldn't dream of trying to expose children to this), I believe it can be an emtional aid to faith.


----------



## carolinablazerfan (Jul 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: OT: Passion of the Christ.*



> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> 
> 
> Here are some other suggested titles:
> ...



Worst post I've ever read! The sacrifice that was made by Christ is nothing to joke about, whether you meant to offend with such a post or not as a christian I found it very offensive.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

He doesn't care if it offends or not, that is his point apparently. The fact is there are many out there who openly RESENT religion, for whatever misguided reason, and many others who are even now, actively working to make it irrelevant in today's society, whther that be overtly or not. It really is a sad affair....


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> He doesn't care if it offends or not, that is his point apparently. The fact is there are many out there who openly RESENT religion, for whatever misguided reason, and many others who are even now, actively working to make it irrelevant in today's society, whther that be overtly or not. It really is a sad affair....


Is it as sad as the crusades? Or terrorism? Or slavery? Or oppression of women's rights? Witch hunting? The inquisition? The holocaust? 

There are plenty of reasons to openly resent religion, considering that differing superstitions about god have led to the deaths of MILLIONS of human beings. That's not misguided. 

It's unfortunate that religion isn't irrelevant in today's society. There'd be a lot less bloodshed in the world if differing factions of people wouldn't kill each other because they have differing beliefs on how to enter an imaginary sky kingdom on top of a cloud.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

communist Russia outlawed religion.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> communist Russia outlawed religion.


That's blatantly incorrect.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> There'd be a lot less bloodshed in the world if differing factions of people wouldn't kill each other because they have differing beliefs on how to enter an imaginary sky kingdom on top of a cloud.


OMG! Did you really think before posting that?


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> There are plenty of reasons to openly resent religion, considering that differing superstitions about god have led to the deaths of MILLIONS of human beings.....It's unfortunate that religion isn't irrelevant in today's society.....


You know, the incredibly sad thing to me is, in these types of discussions, the world seems to focus much of itself on religion. Heck, the Pharisee's and religious leaders were all about that "religious" stuff (you know, the same Pharisees and Saducees that Jesus had called "cups that are clean on the outside, but spiritually dead on the inside" and "whitewashed tombs" (Matthew 23:25-28), the same ones that would never believe He was the true Messiah and Savior; and, the same ones that called for his torture and death - although, as we know, which had been prophesied about in the OT.)

No, my Blazer friends, it's simply about a relationship and love - love from above - as Jesus demonstrated (i.e. a simple foot washing) in his final moments with His disciples

I found that the movie deftly used selected flashback portions (i.e. the last supper, drawing a line in the sand and "calling out" those who wished to punish the adulterous woman - "cast the first stone" John 8:3-11 ) to poignantly portray the forgiveness, humility and grace in which he died for all humanity's sake.

Frankly, it's a very simple Gospel and truth. However, it's either believed and received, or it's not. Nothing more than that. Man seems to make it far too complicated. Through it all, though, Jesus says that he stands at the door of our hearts (our will) and knocks - hoping that we'll "die" (figuratively) to ourselves, and let Him in to take residence in our lives. (Revelation 3:20) It's something that I did - utterly weeping in brokenness on the floor of my kitchen - 14 years ago. Truly, I am a new creature. The old passed, and all things became new. (II Corinthians 5:17) And, no discussion or debate to the contrary will EVER change that. I still praise God today for that!


----------



## Crazy Fan From Idaho (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> Frankly, it's a very simple Gospel and truth. However, it's either believed and received, or it's not. Nothing more than that. Man seems to make it far too complicated. Through it all, though, Jesus says that he stands at the door of our hearts (our will) and knocks - hoping that we'll "die" (figuratively) to ourselves, and let Him in to take residence in our lives. (Revelation 3:20) It's something that I did - utterly weeping in brokenness on the floor of my kitchen - 14 years ago. Truly, I am a new creature. The old passed, and all things became new. (II Corinthians 5:17) And, no discussion or debate to the contrary will EVER change that. I still praise God today for that!


Agree completely, ABM!!!

I won't watch the movie because I am overcome with horror just reading the gospel accounts of what Jesus went through to pay for my sins. 

I am so thankful He loved me so much He was willing to do that for me and for all those who accept Him as Lord and Savior.


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> That's blatantly incorrect.


how so? to my knowledge religion was officially outlawed (religion is opium for the people...), but the "soviets" didn't really agree with their leaders...


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> 
> 
> Nonetheless, I'd still be very curious as to your interpretations on this portion of scripture. I've certainly been intrigued by your forthrightness in many of your other post offerings. As such, you've piqued my interested regarding your thoughts here...
> ...



ABM,

I don't want you to think I am avoiding answering your request.

I appreciate the kind words, I hope they have caused introspection and furthered your own understanding of your own beliefs.

I tend to engage in discussions like these for two reasons:

(1) To offer my insight and what I have learned, in hopes that it may help someone understand their own truths.
(2) To help further my own understanding of truth that is right for me. It is an exercise in spirituality, I guess.

Anyhow, I have given it some thought. But, I am extremely uninspired right now and as such I think anything I write would be similarly uninspired. Thus, I will marinate on it for a night. 

Basically, my post will consist of my understanding of how I would search for truth in the passage. Then it will focus on my belief that Paul is not really an authority and is quite at odds with Jesus's teachings (not to mention his own). 

Paul's writings have always seemed ... forced ... to me. 

Anyhow, I will delve into it tomorrow. 

But, again, I appreciate the kind words and I too have enjoyed the banter and discussion with EVERYONE here (including you Talkhard).

Please don't take my opinion on this stuff as an attack. It is just the understanding that makes sense to me. 

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>el_Diablo</b>!
> 
> 
> how so? to my knowledge religion was officially outlawed (religion is opium for the people...), but the "soviets" didn't really agree with their leaders...


It was also recently outlawed in China.

"Underground" Churches have become a big thing over there right now.

Play.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

Awesome ABM :greatjob:


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> In reference to Romans Chapter 7:
> Nonetheless, I'd still be very curious as to your interpretations on this portion of scripture.


I tend to side with Hyam Maccoby in respect to Paul. He was a moron. 

First we can examine what I mean by Paul being an idiot:

Paul tried desperately to come across as a Pharisee, he actually tries so hard to come across like a Pharisee that he actually announces, in a very pretentious manner that what he is about to say will only be understood by those that _'have some knowledge of law'_. Personally, I just think Paul was a confused, befuddled chump. I wouldn't be suprised if Paul had little to nothing to do with Jesus and was more focused on creating a religion. 

Anyhow, there are many passages in Paul's Epistles where Paul tries to come across with an air of legalistic understanding. This is how old testament rabbi's of the Pharisee sect used to try to teach. They used legal arguments to argue for the law of God or to explain it. 

However, when one examines Paul's writings, the superficial nature of his legal explinations is readily apparent. Almost like someone who tries to be an intellectual but isn't. Paul, to me, fit that mold. When looking at Paul, one can see that his legal illustrations are vague and lacking in precision - completely in opposition and contrast to the Pharisaic writings of the times. 

Beginning of Romans Chapter 7 Verse 1-6:

_"You cannot be unaware, my friends -- I am speaking to those who have some knowledge of law -- that a person is subject to the law so long as he is alive, and no longer. For example, a married woman is by law bound to her husband while he lives; but if her husband dies, she is discharged from the obligations of the marriage-law. If, therefore, in her husband's lifetime she consorts with another man, she will incur the charge of adultery; but if her husband dies she is free of the law, and she does not commit adultery by consorting with another man. So you, my friends, have died to the law by becoming identified with the body of Christ, and accordingly you have found another husband in him who rose from the dead, so that we may bear fruit for God. While we lived on the level of our lower nature, the sinful passions evoked by the law worked in our bodies, to bear fruit for death. But now, having died to that which held us bound, we are discharged from the law, to serve God in a new way, the way of the spirit, in contrast to the old way, the way of a written code. _

This passage is a great example of the superfluous comments that Paul would make. It makes him seem remarkably stupid. 

To me, the above passage is trying to compare to the abolishment or abrogation of the Torah and the begiining of the new covenant of Christianity within the bounds a legal marriage description. 

But throughout the text, it seems Paul has great difficulty trying to point out who it is that corresponds to the wife and who is the husband. Further, he can't even keep straight who died. 

It would seem that this particular letter from Paul (as we need to understand that all of Paul's writings were letters 70 years after the death of Jesus) intended to indicate that the wife is the Spirit (or Church); the former husband is the Torah, and the new husband is the Christ figure. 

Paul says that a wife is released by the death of her husband and is free to marry a new husband; therefore we should interpret the text in the comparison as the Spirit(or Church) was freed, by the death of the Torah, to marry the Christ. 

Unfortunately, Paul, in his complete ignorance and lack of understanding, indicates it is the wife or Spirit (Church) that dies in the statement _'you, my friends, have died to the law by becoming identified with the body of Christ'_ and there is even a mentioning that the new husband, Christ, has died. Which he did, but in the context of the example that Paul is trying to give, it only beffudles the reader. The only term that has NOT died in Paul's example is the Torah ... the only thing that was pronounced dead by the sacrifice of Jesus. The death of the Torah is the only thing that makes the argument valid. 

Paul also goes on record by presenting an entirely different idea as well. The idea is that a person will be free from legal obligations after his or her own death. This would seem to be the theme that Paul first tries to play on: _'that a person is subject to the law so long as he is alive, and no longer.'_ Unfortunately the theme of the widow being free to marry after her husband's death is not following the same theme, as the husband died and NOT the wife. Paul continues to confuse the two themes throughout. As Hyam Maccoby stated: "Confusion cannot be worse confounded than this".

The end result is Paul trying desperately to construct a legal analogy or parable and floundering. Why? Because Paul missed not only the message of Jesus (if ever he tried to understand it) and his inability to think in the logical manner that one expects of a legal expert. 

There is further proof of Paul's stumblings and I can point you to the contradictory passages, if you would like. 

But, the message is really the point, isn't it? What do I believe the message is?

I think the message is an indication to the people that the old ways are dead and died with the teachings of Jesus. That we should feel free to move on from the old law of the OT. It holds and binds us no more in its death. 

Jesus came and taught us much and changed much, and Paul was trying to show that what once was is no longer. Personally, I think what once was, never was ... but Jesus didn't want to completely confuse the people of the time. Humans seem incapable of complete truth until they are ready, which is all Jesus gave them ... truth in parables. Ready to decipher. 

I think furthermore, that the law created was the true sin. It was what dictates "good" and "evil". In an attept to provide stability, we "created" sin. We do it in our mind. We are the judge. There is an indication that laws of man hold no sway in the realm of God. Why? Because there is no good and evil, only humanly good and evil. 

But, that is just what I take from this chapter. 

The real issue with the chapter, though is the contradictory nature with that of the OT. 

In the OT, the law is said to be ever-lasting:

Exodus (12:14, 17, 24):
_"And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance *for ever*. ... And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance *for ever*. ... And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons *for ever*." _

Leviticus 23:14:
_And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor green ears, until the selfsame day that ye have brought an offering unto your God: *it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.*_ 

Leviticus 23:21: 
_"And ye shall proclaim on the selfsame day, that it may be an holy convocation unto you: ye shall do no servile work therein: *it shall be a statute for ever in all your dwellings throughout your generations."*_

Leviticus 23:31:
_Ye shall do no manner of work: *it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.*_

Psalms 119:151-2:
_"Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth. Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them *for ever*." _

Psalms 119:160:
_"Thy word is true from the beginning: and *every one* of thy righteous judgments endureth *for ever*." _

The NT:

Luke 16:16:
_"The law and the prophets were until John [the Baptist]: since that time the kingdom of heaven is preached." _

Romans 6:14:
_"Ye are not under the law, but under grace." 

Romans 7:4, 6:
"Ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ .... We are delivered from the law, that being dead." 

Anyhow, that's just my understanding.

Play._


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> That's blatantly incorrect.





> Religion in General during the Communist Period (1917-91)
> In the first twenty years of Communism (1917-37), Russian Orthodoxy, the predominant faith in Russia, was persecuted almost to extinction. Hundreds of thousands of priests, sisters, and brothers were murdered by Communist government agents. The surviving remnant of Russian Orthodoxy was allowed to exist under Communist totalitarian control to help rally the people to fight the Nazi German invasion in 1939.
> 
> 
> ...




LINK


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> .......Anyhow, that's just my understanding.
> 
> Play.


Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts and understanding of the passage.

For now, rather than get into deeper explanations from my view (I'm currently at work), I thought I'd share this basic explanation of the Law vs. Grace, since you had eluded to that particular concept.

Anyway, I found it interesting. I hope that you might, too.

From: Present Truth

Here's a basic summary from the piece:



> The gospel of the New Testament is not only set in the framework of Old Testament history. It is also set in the framework of Old Testament law. God's salvation act in Christ was both a historical event and a legal transaction. God acted in such a way that the redemption of the human race was legally accomplished, the sin problem was solved, the devil was defeated, death was abolished, and everlasting righteousness was brought in. The future is a foregone conclusion because the decisive victory has already taken place. Salvation is founded on the just and lawful proceedings of the court of the universe.
> 
> The objection that the juridical element of theology is cold and impersonal stems from a twofold misunderstanding. On one hand, it stems from misunderstanding the character of God. He is a God of law who has created a structured universe governed by inexorable law. The Bible everywhere declares that man is confronted with a final judgment which will judge him by law (Rom. 2:6-16). On the other hand, man, made in God's image, is a creature of law. His own conscience testifies to the human heart's insatiable demand for justice. Man cannot be truly human unless he knows he is in the right—justified. All human behavior is related to justification. Man's behavior either springs from the effort to be justified or from the consolation of being justified. Only a salvation historically and legally established can give man peace of conscience and a secure basis on which to build for time and eternity. Although biblical truth may not appeal directly to the emotions, it strikes a man in the center of his existence. It alone can profoundly affect his deepest feelings because it alone can reach his deepest needs.


Playmaker0017, It is my hope and prayer that you might find what I did years ago. There is NO doubt in my mind, that I wouldn't be here today, if it weren't for God's Grace - saving me from my former life of alcoholism, drug abuse, adultery, debauchery, cheating and lying, contempt.......among many other undesirable "traits" which I had been known for. To be honest, I should have died drunk and stoned in my car many times over.

I guess God had something else in mind, though.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

From ABM's quote:


> Although biblical truth may not appeal directly to the emotions, it strikes a man in the center of his existence. It alone can profoundly affect his deepest feelings because it alone can reach his deepest needs.


I just don't find it compelling at all. it strikes me as a mind game or at best the legal process of a despot, not the sort of (relatively) fair court proceedings we are used to in a democracy.

before anyone gets really mad at me for calling the Christian God a despot, hear me out: 

God made everything because he is infinite. nothing existed before him. 

God made the rule of law. 

God made all the people who live (or don't live) by it. 

God made free will, and has infinite wisdom so he knew exactly what everybody would do once they got it. 

God then is disappointed in us for failing to live up to His law, even though He knew we wouldn't. 

God sets up the defense team in Jesus. 

God sacrfices Jesus. 

Everybody who is lucky enough to have heard about Jesus in their lifetime lives happily ever after. if you didn't or you didn't happen to talk to somebody who could convince you of its truth, too bad for you. 

this judicial system is supposed to appeal to my inner sense of justice? sounds like the arbitrary meanderings of a despot to me.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> From: Present Truth


Not an entirely bad piece there. I enjoyed the read, although in order to take it to heart certain assumptions must be held.

One is that one actually accepts the truth of the scriptures translation. Further that one accepts the Bible as an unerring work of God. 

Two is that it holds only for those that believe man and God are separate entities. Furthermore, that God and man are at odds. I cannot reconcile either of these thoughts with my current understanding. 

Not that this truth is not for you, but it just doesn't ring the bell of truth for me.



> Playmaker0017, It is my hope and prayer that you might find what I did years ago.


I doubt that I will, but I appreciate the thought and sentiment. This is NOT a sarcastic statement. I truly appreciate it, as I know that to you, what you say is truth and as such you would hope and pray for my salvation. There is no way I could take offense to that.



> There is NO doubt in my mind, that I wouldn't be here today, if it weren't for God's Grace - saving me from my former life of alcoholism, drug abuse, adultery, debauchery, cheating and lying, contempt.......among many other undesirable "traits" which I had been known for.


Please don't take this as a personal attack, because it is far from it. 

I have always held the opinion that most organized religion is great for people with extreme/addictive personalities. 

See, what I mean is that people with an addictive mindset need something to focus their minds on. I have a relatively addictive personality, which is why I have never touched a drug and rarely drink. I know how I respond to things, so instead, I focus my energy on Reef and little minutia around my life. 

When people that have had similar experiences, and many devout religious people have had them, they are left with an emptiness that needs to be filled. See, at one point there was a fixation or an addiction to drugs, alcohol and such --- but when the person quits -- there was a void. To fill this void many turn to God and the Bible. Now the Bible and God are their drug and complete them.

Although the fixation on "Biblical God" is CERTAINLY better than the alternative, it doesn't mean that it rings true for me.



> To be honest, I should have died drunk and stoned in my car many times over.


And that would have TRULY been a sad moment as we would not be having this discussion and imparting our understandings to one another.



> I guess God had something else in mind, though.


God always works for good and will always provide that which you need. 

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> Everybody who is lucky enough to have heard about Jesus in their lifetime lives happily ever after. if you didn't or you didn't happen to talk to somebody who could convince you of its truth, too bad for you.
> 
> this judicial system is supposed to appeal to my inner sense of justice? sounds like the arbitrary meanderings of a despot to me.


That is what I call the Christian Conundrum. 

Reconciling that which makes little rational sense to become a universal truth.

Unfortunately, most (and thankfully they don't seem to inhabit this board, everyone here is very forthright and that's COOL) seem to hide behind the "faith" aspect. 

Play.


----------



## bigmansworld (Mar 2, 2004)

*well calling ones god despot*

"Again im new to the board" but we must have "atheists" on this board. i have never heard such outright disrespect for god or his followers. i have atheist as freinds but they never would call god a despot. they call it a higher power but say it doesnt exist. but to mock a creator that christians, muslims, jews believe in .is very mean and as a religous person not a thing of tollerance and unity :heart: :devil:  :dead:


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

bigmansworld--

sorry I offended you. it wasn't my intent. 

my intent is to point out that God's system as defined by Christianity (and nowhere do I mention Islam or Judaism--mostly because I'm not willing to judge religions I know far less about) is arbitrary. 

the author ABM cited said Paul was proving that the judical element of Christianity was supposed to appeal to my own sense of justice. it doesn't. 

how can it if it excludes billions of people from salvation merely because of their ignorance and the circumstances of their life? 

the only type of person I could imagine who would establish such a judicial system would be a despot, not a kind, loving and uniting god that I believe him to be. 

the God I believe in is perfect. he doesn't design strange systems of judgement with glaring imperfections like Christianity describes. 

you are certainly free to call me an atheist, but you are labeling me without any reason as far as I can see. 

I believe God is much bigger than the beliefs of several hundred million people and a book written by men thousands of years ago. 

my god has better things to do with his time than to invent man, invent the problem of sin, invent a son, invent a sacrifice of his only son to compensate for that sin, and invent a hell for those who don't get the benefit of his son's sacrifice. 

I don't pretend to understand the master plan. but if that really is it, it'd be a hell of a disappointment. 

most of reality is pretty fair. gravity applies to us all the same way. solar systems, electrons, wind, energy..... things seem surprisingly consistent and predictable in behavior. 

why would God develop such a weird way to judge humanity?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> why would God develop such a weird way to judge humanity?


think about it..you've been around for a long long time, and you have a lot of time on your hands..


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

*Re: well calling ones god despot*



> Originally posted by <b>bigmansworld</b>!
> "Again im new to the board" but we must have "atheists" on this board.


I don't think anyone here has espoused an atheist thought yet.

I can't say there are no atheists here, but I haven't heard the opinion. I believe there are probably more agnostics than atheists. 



> i have never heard such outright disrespect for god or his followers. i have atheist as freinds but they never would call god a despot.


If you have never heard this amount of disrespect then you must be young. I've heard God called MUCH worse than a despot.

Besides, the wording of despot would have been correct using theWanker's understanding and breakdown of God's "law". If some shall call him King, Lord, God or Ruler -- then other interpretations to his rule would also apply. For instance, if we use most translations of the Bible, then God is definitely a Right Wing Conservative. It is just an observation, I don't think it was meant as an attack. 

theWanker hasn't seemed the type.



> they call it a higher power but say it doesnt exist.


Is that any worse then looking objectively at "his" law and making a judgement on it?

If someone were to run a country as God runs the universe, we would label him a dictator or a despot. 



> but to mock a creator that christians, muslims, jews believe in .is very mean and as a religous person not a thing of tollerance and unity :heart: :devil:  :dead:


I don't think he was mocking. 

Play.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Of course, if I'm wrong, then, I've certainly lived a wonderful life. Wouldn't want it any other way. 

However, if true unbeliever (in Christ) is wrong.............


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> Of course, if I'm wrong, then, I've certainly lived a wonderful life. Wouldn't want it any other way.
> 
> However, if true unbeliever (in Christ) is wrong.............


Better late than never


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> Of course, if I'm wrong, then, I've certainly lived a wonderful life. Wouldn't want it any other way.
> 
> However, if true unbeliever (in Christ) is wrong.............


...then I'll suffer the same consequences that billions of people who've never even heard of Christ will suffer. I can live with that.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> 
> 
> ...then I'll suffer the same consequences that billions of people who've never even heard of Christ will suffer. I can live with that.


Yep.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Wanker...

I really like what you said. 

I suppose I'm agnostic...

23 years on this planet hasn't been quite enough for me to nail down the governing laws of the universe. Maybe I'm slow?

That said, if there is one singular higher power that created everything I imagine it would be much more like yours than the whimsical God that _can_ be interpereted from the pages of the Bible.

I'm still searching for truth, but am not particularly confident that I will find it in this world. Maybe there's another one - I like trying new things...


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> Of course, if I'm wrong, then, I've certainly lived a wonderful life. Wouldn't want it any other way.


And that is how you should live.



> However, if true unbeliever (in Christ) is wrong.............


I've heard this concept many times. 

To me, fear should never a reason to believe in something. It should NEVER be the driving factor for your reasoning. It isn't a healthy emotion and as such can only lead to unhealthy decisions.

Luke 6:43:
_"No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit."_

Do I choose not to murder for FEAR of the law or because of something else? 

To tell you the truth, if I am wrong (which I most assuredly am considering the vast potential for what the truth really is and considering most of it is stuff I probably could not fathom. Heck, to assume 100% accuracy or even .001% would probably be pretty arrogant), and you are right (again, pretty infinitesimal odds), then I wouldn't have chosen to be a part of that system to begin with.

The "creator you believe in" and I differ on our definition of LOVE and COMPASSION. I wouldn't want to know this creator, nor do I have a desire to suck up to him. Let him rot in his jealousy and rage ... I will have nothing to do with it. So, I say now, for all, that if this God is the God depicted in the OT, then I choose to live without. 

But, how can I really say this if God is all there is? Can I really live without myself? Can I really not exist? 

That is why I don't live in fear. 

Play.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

BTW to those who are atheisist, I have no bad feelings towards you about what you believe in, nor do I think of you as ignorant or stupid.

I will say this though I have yet to meet a person who found Christianity as an adult, who didn't feel that God personally touched their lives in one way or another, adn to a T they can tell you where they were and what they were doing.

I know many people whose lives were in disarray due to substance abuse. Only through Religion and god are they strong enough to fight their inner Demons.

The flaw is in mankind, not in God. That flaw was granted to man and is called free will. God didn't want use to be puppets, he wanted us to be individuals and have our own lives. 

Throughout the OT there are animal sacrifices made by people to atone for their sins, in fact ther are even Human sacrifices. So the spilling of blood for salvation was not a new concept in the NT. But only Jesus as Gods son was strong enough to carry the burde of all mas sin, not men of that time, but for all men.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Pascal's wager is not a good basis for belief in god.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> And that is how you should live.
> ...


I personnally despise the concept of believing out of fear. 

Your statement about the creator. You aknowledge that there is one creator, so there is no choice to be made, either accept god or defie god, ther is no ignoring god.

Reminds me of an episode of "That 70's Show". Michael tells Jackie that God won't know about their premarital sex, if they have it in his van...Why? He has lead pannels in the roof and god's x-ray vision won't see through lead.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> BTW to those who are atheisist, I have no bad feelings towards you about what you believe in, nor do I think of you as ignorant or stupid.
> 
> I will say this though I have yet to meet a person who found Christianity as an adult, who didn't feel that God personally touched their lives in one way or another, adn to a T they can tell you where they were and what they were doing.
> ...


Yeah, well...I met a guy who cleaned up his act after he discovered weight lifting. Instead of going out and getting hammered every night, he'd hit the gym and work out for hours at a time. He completely cleaned up his act. Does that mean God can ONLY be found at the local Gold's Gym? No. 



> The flaw is in mankind, not in God. That flaw was granted to man and is called free will. God didn't want use to be puppets, he wanted us to be individuals and have our own lives.
> 
> Throughout the OT there are animal sacrifices made by people to atone for their sins, in fact ther are even Human sacrifices. So the spilling of blood for salvation was not a new concept in the NT. But only Jesus as Gods son was strong enough to carry the burde of all mas sin, not men of that time, but for all men.


There's where I have a problem with religion in general. Your idea that all other religions and belief systems will fail. 

Re: Atheism, here's an interesting quote I once read has stuck with me:

"I contend that we are both atheists; I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

I'd love some feedback on that quote.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

> "I contend that we are both atheists; I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
> 
> I'd love some feedback on that quote.


Daddy like...

Where did you come across that tidbit?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Ringbearer</b>!
> Wanker...
> 
> I really like what you said.


theWanker seems to subscribe to Playmakerism. This is the belief that truth is found by searching.

theWanker and I agree on A LOT, if not everything, in regards to this. He's said some things moments before I was going to post it. 

My hat is off to you.



> I suppose I'm agnostic...


Nothing wrong with that state of being. We should all be this way - it keeps us constantly searching and never relaxing with our current definitions. 

We don't understand our own bodies yet -- but somehow we assume to have figured out the creator. 

That which doesn't evolve is going to wither and die.



> 23 years on this planet hasn't been quite enough for me to nail down the governing laws of the universe. Maybe I'm slow?


Nah. You are always RIGHT WHERE YOU NEED TO BE. There is no other way. 



> That said, if there is one singular higher power that created everything I imagine it would be much more like yours than the whimsical God that _can_ be interpereted from the pages of the bible.


The God of the Bible isn't whimsical, per se... but I see your point.

I agree.



> I'm still searching for truth, but am not particularly confident that I will find it in this world. Maybe there's another one - I like trying new things...


Read "Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time : The Historical Jesus and the Heart of Contemporary Faith", "Conversations With God", "The Tao of Physics", "The Tao of Pooh", "The Ti of Piglet", "The Dancing Wu Li Masters", "HyperSpace", anything by Kahlil Gibran, any books on the "Gospel of Thomas". God, I could go on... but that will keep your summer reading up to par.

A friend of mine once told me to visit:
www.fusionanomaly.net  

Great stuff. 

Play.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> Pascal's wager is not a good basis for belief in god.


I remember discussing this in one of (too many) philosophy classes I took. It was during this dicussio that I had a major epiphany! It was that "this pascal guy is a tool!". With this knowledge at hand, I now had the answer to all lives questions! But 10 minutes later, I was back questioning everything, because I had forgotten the answers. My philosophy classes did that to me.

And thus, the life of a philosophy student was cemented.

Pascals wager is a line of hooey. It's basically weighing the options, so that you almost have to pick the 'obvious' slanted correct answer.

Yes, I realize this was basically already talked about, I just feel special right now.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

My dad is actually big into "Conversations with God"...

He runs the Portland Center for it...

I have heard a lot about it, but haven't attacked the texts themselves. If nothing else, it seems like a nice, more up to date version of Christianity.

Cheers


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> I personnally despise the concept of believing out of fear.


As do I.



> Your statement about the creator. You aknowledge that there is one creator, so there is no choice to be made, either accept god or defie god, ther is no ignoring god.


I acknowledge nothing. I have a personal belief that there is only one source for everything and anything that exists outside of this cannot, by definition, exist. 

But, I cannot, 100% say that there is ONE creator. How should I know?

I only know what understanding makes sense to me. 

As for accepting, defying or ignoring -- I think all we ever do is IGNORE God. That's the point.

How can you accept or deny something that does not have a desire to be accepted or denied. It has no preference. It just is. A preference indicates good and bad. I don't think God exists in this realm of thought ... it is too ... human.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Ringbearer</b>!
> My dad is actually big into "Conversations with God"...
> 
> He runs the Portland Center for it...


Really, how very interesting. 



> I have heard a lot about it, but haven't attacked the texts themselves. If nothing else, it seems like a nice, more up to date version of Christianity.


When I read it, I did not take that thought away from them. But, I can see how someone would.

I think it explains hard concepts in a much more rudimentary way. It takes a VERY difficult idea and organizes it so that it makes sense.

It's a quick read. 

I HIGHLY recommend it. I don't think it is ALL truth, but it has a LOT of truth. 

Play.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Ringbearer</b>!
> 
> Where did you come across that tidbit?


Here's a bit about it:

http://www.wildlink.com/freelink/quote_history.htm


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, well...I met a guy who cleaned up his act after he discovered weight lifting. Instead of going out and getting hammered every night, he'd hit the gym and work out for hours at a time. He completely cleaned up his act. Does that mean God can ONLY be found at the local Gold's Gym? No.


Exercise can be labeled as a distraction addiction. But I understand what you mean. In a sense it is a matter of being able to focus away from the addiction itself, but it is not evidence that God doesn't exist.




> There's where I have a problem with religion in general. Your idea that all other religions and belief systems will fail.


I have the same issues/questions regarding religion. One of the people I most respect in the world is the Dali Lhama. I personally refuse to accept that God will not allow him into Heaven because he didn't accept Christ as his Savior.

At the same time I really have problems with any organized religion, or anti-religion that accuses people of being wrong without at least learnign about that which they are accusing.



> Re: Atheism, here's an interesting quote I once read has stuck with me:
> 
> "I contend that we are both atheists; I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
> 
> I'd love some feedback on that quote.


I have an opinion of atheism based on interaction with many atheists and having at times considered myself one.

Not all but most that I have talked to, refuse to believe that their personal accomplishments stem from anything but their own actions. Others have been slighted by a religious person or group of people, or they feel that they have been deserted by God at times in their life when he was mcuhly needed.

I am not saying that to offend anyone, as I have myself felt that way at times, in fact for most of my life.

The fact of the matter is those who believe have what they have due to their belief, regardless of what that belief is, so in a sense we are all one in our beliefs.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> BTW to those who are atheisist, I have no bad feelings towards you about what you believe in, nor do I think of you as ignorant or stupid.
> 
> I will say this though I have yet to meet a person who found Christianity as an adult, who didn't feel that God personally touched their lives in one way or another, adn to a T they can tell you where they were and what they were doing.


as a former Baptist, I've met a lot of people like this too. I certainly repect their beliefs and I'm glad they've achieved them, but this big change in mentality can happen in other religions (and philosophies) as well. 

the key, IMO, is in trying to elevate your mind beyond the current reality around you, looking for a bigger picture, rising above some baser instincts and caring about your fellow man. 

I believe Christianity can be a great vehicle for doing that, but it's not the only one. 

the older I get, the less likely it seems to me I'll ever settle on the real truth. I'm beginning to doubt that's even the point. 

I was looking at my three month old nephew the other day, and I couldn't help but wonder if a dozen different religions had whizzed through his head already. 

he has such a limited understanding of his environment he could easily decide his mom, dad, or even the lamp in the corner was a deity, and his mind is so simple he wouldn't even remember thinking so in an hour. 

is it really so horrible that he doesn't know the truth? one day he'll get older and figure out what his mom, dad and that lamp all really do. would he really be happier if he knew it now?

somehow I doubt it. the important thing, I think, is that he keeps trying to figure it all out, not that he ever succeeds.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> theWanker seems to subscribe to Playmakerism. This is the belief that truth is found by searching.


ahem. I don't agree entirely. first, it's called "theWankerism," pal. 



> theWanker and I agree on A LOT, if not everything, in regards to this. He's said some things moments before I was going to post it.
> 
> My hat is off to you.


heh, isn't there some irony that a guy who prides himself on independent thought is patting the back of another guy who prides himself on independent thought for thinking the exact same thing as the first guy?


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> I remember discussing this in one of (too many) philosophy classes I took. It was during this dicussio that I had a major epiphany! It was that "this pascal guy is a tool!". With this knowledge at hand, I now had the answer to all lives questions! But 10 minutes later, I was back questioning everything, because I had forgotten the answers. My philosophy classes did that to me.
> ...



I was a psych/phil major and one day came to the realization that I was in a trap. A trap that would lend an argument to everything true or false. The infinity of the "gray area" can lead a person to nowhere and keep them spinning there the rest of their life. 

Good grief-you can use psych or phil to argue any point to any end you want it to be. 

I appreciate the simplicity of God in comparison.

I don't have to prove to anybody why I believe. I simply do.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> 
> 
> ahem. I don't agree entirely. first, it's called "theWankerism," pal.


How about we meet in the middle --- and call it WankPlayism ... Of course, that does sound phallic.




> heh, isn't there some irony that a guy who prides himself on independent thought is patting the back of another guy who prides himself on independent thought for thinking the exact same thing as the first guy?


I don't think so. 

If two people reach a concept through mutually independent thought and experience then the concept is still reached through independent thought.

Or some such nonsense. 

Anyhow, can't you just accept a freaking compliment, buddy?!

Play.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> 
> I was a psych/phil major and one day came to the realization that I was in a trap. A trap that would lend an argument to everything true or false. The infinity of the "gray area" can lead a person to nowhere and keep them spinning there the rest of their life.
> 
> Good grief-you can use psych or phil to argue any point to any end you want it to be.


everyone can (and does) argue their point to end up the way they like it.


> I appreciate the simplicity of God in comparison.
> 
> I don't have to prove to anybody why I believe. I simply do.


I was just telling Schilly about this. I said "who am I to question someone elses relationship (or lack of) with god?"

basically, I don't care. Don't push it on me, but don't be afraid of debate about it.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

There is no right answer, only questions to questions.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Play-

seriously, though, I don't know if we agree entirely. on Christianity, yes. but you've obviously spent a lot of your life contemplating an assortment of religions in order to try to make heads or tails of it all. you think truth comes in searching. 

I spend maybe a weekend a month and two weeks a year contemplating my navel a bit between basketball games and home improvement. if truth comes in searching, I don't seem to be looking as hard as I could. 

it's something I think about, but it doesn't drive me as much as it (and SAR) seem to drive you.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> 
> I spend maybe a weekend a month and two weeks a year contemplating my navel a bit between basketball games and home improvement.


You're in the Texas Air National Guard too, eh?










Sah-lute!


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> Play-
> 
> seriously, though, I don't know if we agree entirely. on Christianity, yes. but you've obviously spent a lot of your life contemplating an assortment of religions in order to try to make heads or tails of it all. you think truth comes in searching.
> ...


But our concepts are similar, that is my point.

Truth can still come from searching, but it is not the only place. Heck, the most zen moment I have heard of was on a lake listening to music. 

There are more ways then I can count that will eventually lead to truth. Mine comes from experience and asking what makes sense to me. I did my fair share of searching, but now I rely on this type of talk to bring new insight.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> You're in the Texas Air National Guard too, eh?
> ...


Bush wasn't an extremely ugly youth. 

Play.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

LMAO FORK! 

that was too easy.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Interesting conversation. I guess I won't get involved since I don't disagree with anyone enough to argue/interpret/preach.

I do *love* this quote, though: "I contend that we are both atheists; I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

Great stuff.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I knew he looked like someone from a sitcom....


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> 
> 
> I knew he looked like someone from a sitcom....


DEAR GOD!


----------



## bigmansworld (Mar 2, 2004)

*SINCE I TEACH POWERLIFTING*

Id say their is some great stories of men and women inproving themselves. in the GYM but it was a physical change not a spiritual one. ive seen both together its awsome. True change is the hardest alone ."But when you get help" it can be easier and change like that lasts. I do believe in christ and i am not ashamed. or intimidated. "never" i have lived a life of debautchery until ten years ago. Im not young. beer bongs regular bongs and sex off the charts whith tottal babes. {as a athelete it was so easy to live like this}but as i had a shotgun to my head and steriods and coke in my body god changed me. I cant tell you the entire reason other than some old grannys who loved me in a way i couldnt understand, prayed for me to find jesus christ. even though i cursed his name and would break a religous persons neck than to listen to their bologna until that day. i realate to ABM. their is power in the name of christ. BMW:yes:


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> 
> Exercise can be labeled as a distraction addiction. But I understand what you mean. In a sense it is a matter of being able to focus away from the addiction itself, but it is not evidence that God doesn't exist.


I mean no disrespect here, but in my world anything can be deemed a distraction addiction and that certainly includes religion.

Some people just have very addictive personalities and no matter what they get into, they're gonna run with it and occasionally go overboard.

The question is, can they find something to focus on that is helpful to others or at least not destructive.

I think that for many, religion seems to be a worthwhile outlet for such energy as in most cases it preaches tolerance and goodwill... 

Cheers


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

Taking all of this in, I had a question pop up. I wonder how often it is that someone invest a lot of time and effort into convincing others of their thoughts, due to the lack of being completely convinced themselves? And that if they could just sway one other person it just might be the validation they need.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

happens to me all the time, RG. not on this particular thread (as far as I can remember), but I very much doubt that most of the things said on this board are based on 100% conviction. 

I often find the best way to know what I believe is to try to convince someone else. certainly nothing wrong with that.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> To me, fear should never a reason to believe in something. It should NEVER be the driving factor for your reasoning. It isn't a healthy emotion and as such can only lead to unhealthy decisions.


Trust me, my friend, my decision back then was never based on fear. You may have misinterpreted my remark.

My decision was purely based upon truth/conviction at the time and verified many, many times by what has transpired in my life, since. Was I in dire straits with nowhere to go? Hardly. I had just come to the end of _myself_ - broken (contrite) in my spirit, tired of conforming to the world's ways and standards (Romans 12:1-2) anymore. I had a ol' big dump truck load (of frivolous living) to leave behind that evening. There was nobody there with me, no manipulation on someone else's part. Just God..........and I. Truly, one of THE most beautiful experiences imaginable - this side of heaven. Mine is just one story - like a snowflake - most likely, entirely different from many other Christians. But, hey, God created each of us uniquely different in that, and every other, way - and I'm glad for that. :clap: 

No, back to what I had previously said: In all seriousness, my remark was actually a rhetorical question - probably steered towards those that are in a perpetual state of searching for truth - which, in and of itself may be fine. That is, unless they never reach it, and the futile search leads to.................. :whoknows: (BTW, know how to boil a frog?)

OK, I'm not going to make this thread my effort/intention to proselytize the dissenting ranks. I doubt that would happen, anyway. {although, _stranger_ things have happened. }I just appreciated the "opportunity" to share my faith a little bit. It's always a good personal exercise.................

Now, back to your regularly scheduled Blazer game.......


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> 
> 
> I often find the best way to know what I believe is to try to convince someone else. certainly nothing wrong with that.


I think it's a good thing Wanker, if you are truthful with yourself about it. I question my beliefs constantly, even the ones I have about being Christian. What I don't question is my faith. I know that sounds contradicting but I believe there are things that aren't meant for me to figure out, especially when it comes to something I consider so much greater than myself.

I can relate to ABM. When I was without Christ I floundered helplessly. I rarely experience that with him.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

*So I lied.*

I said that I wouldn't post any more in this thread. But that was before I read this letter in the LA Times:


> I am a high school teacher and the daughter of Holocaust survivors. Monday morning, Period 1, a student, age 17, comes into my room. She asks me if I had seen the film "The Passion."
> 
> I answer, "No."
> 
> ...


But of course that could <i>never</i> have been Hutton Gibson's son's intent.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> Taking all of this in, I had a question pop up. I wonder how often it is that someone invest a lot of time and effort into convincing others of their thoughts, due to the lack of being completely convinced themselves? And that if they could just sway one other person it just might be the validation they need.


Anyone that is TOTALLY convinced themselves probably haven't reached the right answers.  

Seriously, I talk not to "convince" (although that is also a validating feeling, and makes one realize that they aren't a loon), but rather to explain it to myself. The concepts are hard to grasp, almost like trying to grasp a fleck of dirt in a bathtub. 

I am DEFINITELY not totally convinced of my opinions and beliefs. They are right for me at this moment in time, and truth be told, I hope that someone can expand them even further.

Play.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: So I lied.*



> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> I said that I wouldn't post any more in this thread. But that was before I read this letter in the LA Times:
> 
> 
> But of course that could <i>never</i> have been Hutton Gibson's son's intent.


Interesting...

Also interesting is that Mel Gibson has NEVER come out and condemned those idiotic comments made by Hutton Gibson.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: So I lied.*



> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> I said that I wouldn't post any more in this thread. But that was before I read this letter in the LA Times:
> 
> 
> ...


not to be too picky, but we're talking about some idiot high school student's opinion on a movie. 

I remember kids laughing..._ laughing _ during Schindlers list when my school saw it at Lloyd Centre.

*LAUGHING*.

the fact that some ****ing morons laughed during the movie doesn't change that it was a very important movie. People who don't understand history (like saying "I hate jews" because of the movie) either are doomed to be stupid the rest of their lives, or already have issues and just use the movie as their crutch.

Bad things happened back then, and to now all the sudden "hate jews" because they were exposed to it, shows a lack of understanding things in a historical perspective.

I almost question whether or not the teacher just rushed to judgement, and decided to use the students response as her "proof".


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Umm...Jesus was a Jew himself.

On top of that he was Crucified by the Romans and those who had aligned themselves with the Roman Empire.

Ignorance at it's finest, and if quoting an ignorant person is your best argument...


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> 
> Ignorance at it's finest, and if quoting an ignorant person is your best argument...


Well, Schilly, there are a lot of ignorant people. Like Gibson's own father and, according to some reports, Gibson himself.

If a movie or speech or book you create inflames a great deal of ignorant people to hate a group of people, that's a perfectly good argument against the work.

This one girl isn't a great deal of people by herself, but it's worth considering that she's probably not totally unique. If she had that reaction, there are probably many others who did.

As I said, ignorant people are common. And being their leader is not a good thing.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> If a movie or speech or book you create inflames a great deal of ignorant people to hate a group of people, that's a perfectly good argument against the work.


What a revelation. No doubt, the Bible is the worst culprit in that context.


----------



## blazerbraindamage (May 5, 2003)

Aren't these constant charges of anti-semitism against Christians just acts of anti-Christianism ?

No one who hates Jews can be a true Christian even if they try to call themselves Christian.It's like saying you believe in Ghandi-style passive resistance and then going out and killing a bunch of people.Does that reflect Ghandi ?


----------

