·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Passion of the Christ, your thoughts
Passion of the Christ, your thoughtsFollow
Yep, Patrician, I like that last quote too. I might have to use that one sometime...
Quote:
So how many threads do we need to argue the exact same topics? This thread was supposed to be about a movie; the religious debate/flamewar is currently being held over there -->
That one is not about Religion it's about marriage
The marriage thread has turned to religion also? That makes three - I was referring to the evolution thread.
Thank you for pointing out NORML to me, that site is a good read. Not that I would start a topic on it, like a religious zealot who wants to beat their doctrine into everyone else's heads.
Thank you for pointing out NORML to me, that site is a good read. Not that I would start a topic on it, like a religious zealot who wants to beat their doctrine into everyone else's heads.
Fellgaze wrote:
Ever hear of this notion called "choice"?
Ever hear of this *other* notion called "temptation"?
Ever hear of this *other* notion called "temptation"?
Okay, except if lets say I were omnicient I would be able to see into the future and KNOW what happened and therefore plan before hand and change it...unless you are saying God knows what is going to happen buy has no power to change it. There are ways to alter the course without affecting free-will.
ibzamshamgar wrote:
God wants to be loved. just like us. after all, we're created in His image. but it's not true love if the person of your affection is just a mindless robot...we go back to the problem of choice.
Ah, the problem of coice. Except how can there be choice when this God pre-destines who will be saved?
Eph 3-6
"3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,
4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,
6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved."
Rom 8: 29-30
"29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified."
John 6: 44
"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day."
Now, obviously predestination is in the Bible. So the ones who will be "saved" are chosen "before the foundation of the world". So then I pose to you a question. If God chose who will go to heaven he also chose who will go to hell. How can anything that you claim as "love" and "righteous" send people to a place that is so terrible it is only described as eternal torture?
TheChoiceIsYours wrote:
Quote:
So how many threads do we need to argue the exact same topics?
As many as it takes until both sides are content?
it will never happen
Quote:
i know for a fact that the only way is Jesus Christ.
Signed an exclusive contract with him, did you ?
Here's my belief, since I haven't spouted off yet.
I believe that God exists, that He is known by many names, attributed both (and neither) genders, has innumerable manifestations, and exists within the human soul.
In so saying, many Smiths are all one.
In all honesty, my only problem with Christians is that too damned few of them are Christ-like.
From what I have heard the movie is powerful.
"It is a very good dramatization of a man named Jesus' last twelve hours on earth." - A jewish customer that visits my store every day and went to see the movie with a christian friend of his.
"Powerful - I didn't cry because of what they did to him, but because of why he went through with it." - An employee of mine that took the above gentleman to see the movie.
Regarding the rest of the topic - I was very liberal "open minded" tolerant of alternative lifestyles and ideas, until studying and learning the truth. However it was not until I accepted that Christ is my Saviour that I truly understand what being a Christian is, and I am not talking about being religious. - I won't ever thump the bible at a person, because it is a personal decision that you have to make.
"It is a very good dramatization of a man named Jesus' last twelve hours on earth." - A jewish customer that visits my store every day and went to see the movie with a christian friend of his.
"Powerful - I didn't cry because of what they did to him, but because of why he went through with it." - An employee of mine that took the above gentleman to see the movie.
Regarding the rest of the topic - I was very liberal "open minded" tolerant of alternative lifestyles and ideas, until studying and learning the truth. However it was not until I accepted that Christ is my Saviour that I truly understand what being a Christian is, and I am not talking about being religious. - I won't ever thump the bible at a person, because it is a personal decision that you have to make.
Quote:
Fellgaze wrote:
God, or Buddha, or The Force....whatever you wanna call the driving, organizing, motivating power of this universe, is all about choice A or B or C. "Here's a path, here are its branches, and here are the outcomes. What will you do now?"
God, or Buddha, or The Force....whatever you wanna call the driving, organizing, motivating power of this universe, is all about choice A or B or C. "Here's a path, here are its branches, and here are the outcomes. What will you do now?"
I understand what you're trying to say, and so if you were to accuse me of 'nitpicking', I would plead guilty... but in no way, shape, or form, should you be using 'Buddha' in the context in which you are.
In Buddhism, none of the things you cited even exist; there is no organization, there is no motivating power, there is no path, no branches, and no outcomes.
Well, to get really ****, according to Buddhism (as I understand it) all things and nothing exist simultaneously each moment. Admittedly it has been awhile and I should really catch up.
I could write, literally, hundreds of pages on what you think you understand about Buddhism, but you are, sincerely, in error.
No-thingness is, and that is all. And that is all.
Basically, there is no thing that exists, not even nothing. Everything you think exists, including nothing and nothingness, is an illusion. The kicker is, all this business about nothing and everyting being an illusion, means that not even the illusion exists.
This quasi-contradiction is often referred to as 'Dependant Arising' and/or 'The Fertile Void'.
Buddhism is simultaneously incredibly simple and incredibly complex.
I think that the development of the world's simplest and deepest philosophy is a pretty damn impressive accomplishment for a short fat bald guy that never existed.
No-thingness is, and that is all. And that is all.
Basically, there is no thing that exists, not even nothing. Everything you think exists, including nothing and nothingness, is an illusion. The kicker is, all this business about nothing and everyting being an illusion, means that not even the illusion exists.
This quasi-contradiction is often referred to as 'Dependant Arising' and/or 'The Fertile Void'.
Buddhism is simultaneously incredibly simple and incredibly complex.
I think that the development of the world's simplest and deepest philosophy is a pretty damn impressive accomplishment for a short fat bald guy that never existed.
As to the issue of god's omniscience, and the supposed contradiction between that and the idea that people have free will...
Um. They are contradictions. By far the most likely explanation is that you have a set of beliefs that evolve over many centuries of oral traditions with different sources. Eventually, they get collected together, and of course there are inconsistencies.
Think about it. We have arguments about the bible on this forum all the time. If 5 different people post about the exact same topic from the bible, we'll get 5 different accounts of what the "truth" is. Of course, we can always go look it up if we want, but that's not the point. When you've got different stories evolving separately about a common subject, you *will* have inconsistencies.
This of course flies in the face of the "divine inspiration" of the bible, but it's really the only thing that makes a shred of sense. The world really would be a better place if people could just accept that the bible paints a general picture of the god of Abraham, and the practice of worshiping him. It is simply a collection of stories written by people that when taken collectively tell the whole story. No single part should be taken absolutely literally. How much hatred would be removed from this world if people would just accept that?
Um... But on the other hand, god may deliberately be *not* using his powers by choice. The researcher could certainly move the mouse to the end of the maze so it could get the cheese at any time he wanted. That would kinds defeat the point though. If god wanted to create people with free will, and he was in fact omnisicent and omnipotent, then he would be forced to create an area (oh, like the universe) in which he would choose to not exert his will. That would be the only way it would work. Of course, it also nicely explains a whole bunch of things. Um... It also contradicts many biblical stories as well (so see my point above). In the end it's kinda irrelevant anyway.
As to Mel Gibson? I didn't find it surprising at all that he did this film. Didn't he also do a film version of Hamlet? Hardly his first time doing an "artistic" film.
On the whole "Jews killed Jesus" thing. I was actually surprised (pleasantly I might add), by the quote the local news used from some random person coming out of the theatre on this subject.
He said something like: "The issue isn't who killed Jesus. Jesus didn't die because of the Jews. He died because of our sins. All of our sins".
Yeah. A bit trite, but a pretty good approach all around. I think you'd be hard pressed today to find christians who actually think that modern day Jews are somehow at fault for killing Jesus. I'm sure they exist, but people exist who believe a whole bunch of stupid stuff to. I don't pay them any attention either...
Um. They are contradictions. By far the most likely explanation is that you have a set of beliefs that evolve over many centuries of oral traditions with different sources. Eventually, they get collected together, and of course there are inconsistencies.
Think about it. We have arguments about the bible on this forum all the time. If 5 different people post about the exact same topic from the bible, we'll get 5 different accounts of what the "truth" is. Of course, we can always go look it up if we want, but that's not the point. When you've got different stories evolving separately about a common subject, you *will* have inconsistencies.
This of course flies in the face of the "divine inspiration" of the bible, but it's really the only thing that makes a shred of sense. The world really would be a better place if people could just accept that the bible paints a general picture of the god of Abraham, and the practice of worshiping him. It is simply a collection of stories written by people that when taken collectively tell the whole story. No single part should be taken absolutely literally. How much hatred would be removed from this world if people would just accept that?
Um... But on the other hand, god may deliberately be *not* using his powers by choice. The researcher could certainly move the mouse to the end of the maze so it could get the cheese at any time he wanted. That would kinds defeat the point though. If god wanted to create people with free will, and he was in fact omnisicent and omnipotent, then he would be forced to create an area (oh, like the universe) in which he would choose to not exert his will. That would be the only way it would work. Of course, it also nicely explains a whole bunch of things. Um... It also contradicts many biblical stories as well (so see my point above). In the end it's kinda irrelevant anyway.
As to Mel Gibson? I didn't find it surprising at all that he did this film. Didn't he also do a film version of Hamlet? Hardly his first time doing an "artistic" film.
On the whole "Jews killed Jesus" thing. I was actually surprised (pleasantly I might add), by the quote the local news used from some random person coming out of the theatre on this subject.
He said something like: "The issue isn't who killed Jesus. Jesus didn't die because of the Jews. He died because of our sins. All of our sins".
Yeah. A bit trite, but a pretty good approach all around. I think you'd be hard pressed today to find christians who actually think that modern day Jews are somehow at fault for killing Jesus. I'm sure they exist, but people exist who believe a whole bunch of stupid stuff to. I don't pay them any attention either...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
i know for a fact that the only way is Jesus Christ.
That's just it you don't KNOW. If you think you KNOW, then you do not understand the word "know".
You BELIEVE. That's all. You Believe. You can be convinced, you can be certain, you can be sure, but you - or any of us - cannot KNOW.
One thing I've come to learn is that the simplest explanation to something is usually the right one.
Quote:
One thing I've come to learn is that the simplest explanation to something is usually the right one.
And one thing I have learned is that taking the easiest explanation usually leads to missing important stuff that lied below the surface, only revealing itself after the obvious has been waded through. Accepting the simplest explanation at face value is a surefire way to completely miss the boat.
Well I saw the movie last night and I thought it was great. It was put together very well, definatly a lot better than I expected. It was brutal though so if you are one that that sort of thing bothers you you may not want to go see it.
Hey, did you all hear about that one lady that had a heart attack and died? I am supposed to go with my church choir next week, but like 3 of them have heart conditions... Wondering if I shouldn't just ask them to wait for the DVD....
Edited, Thu Feb 26 12:15:07 2004 by Atomicflea
Edited, Thu Feb 26 12:15:07 2004 by Atomicflea
Quote:
That's just it you don't KNOW. If you think you KNOW, then you do not understand the word "know".
You BELIEVE. That's all. You Believe. You can be convinced, you can be certain, you can be sure, but you - or any of us - cannot KNOW.
One thing I've come to learn is that the simplest explanation to something is usually the right one.
You BELIEVE. That's all. You Believe. You can be convinced, you can be certain, you can be sure, but you - or any of us - cannot KNOW.
One thing I've come to learn is that the simplest explanation to something is usually the right one.
sorry, but you just don't have that right. if something is a reality to someone, its knowledge. if you want to start picking down to details, everything FACT on this earth is still defined by man...and subject to the same great error we are famous for. FACT is nothing more than an accepted set of standards we use to compare everything else to.
If an alien species far more advanced dropped down on us now, try telling them the ship they used to get here doesn't work because it doesn't match up to our scientific laws.
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Hey, did you all hear about that one lady that had a heart attack and died?
I hear she was talking during the movie...
Thundra wrote:
I could write, literally, hundreds of pages on what you think you understand about Buddhism, but you are, sincerely, in error.
As I am sincerely interested in Buddism, I would appreciate if you would.
Why do these posts on buddhism remind me of the matrix?
Quote:
Debailic: As I am sincerely interested in Buddism, I would appreciate if you would.
No problem. It may take me a bit.
Quote:
Empyre: Why do these posts on buddhism remind me of the matrix?
I know exactly what you mean. Warner Bros. should sue the nuts off of Buddha for copyright infringement, doncha think?
Oh - well I wasn't entirely serious (about writing it up), if you know of any worthwhile books to recommend that would be fine.
I wasn't being sarcastic, Debalic. :) I just meant that it may take me a day or two.
Also, judging from the comments you made about a dualistic non/existence, you are interested in Zen.
I really recommend The Zen Koan: Its History and Use in Rinzai Zen.
Rinzai is a sect of Zen. It's the 'intellectual' approach to Zen, as opposed to the 'meditational' approach of Soto.
I'll post something more substantial tomorrow probably. It'll be a long post, and so it's quality will probably be substantially lower than the normal high standards I maintain for most of my garbage- I just want to make sure it's not too much lower.
Also, judging from the comments you made about a dualistic non/existence, you are interested in Zen.
I really recommend The Zen Koan: Its History and Use in Rinzai Zen.
Rinzai is a sect of Zen. It's the 'intellectual' approach to Zen, as opposed to the 'meditational' approach of Soto.
I'll post something more substantial tomorrow probably. It'll be a long post, and so it's quality will probably be substantially lower than the normal high standards I maintain for most of my garbage- I just want to make sure it's not too much lower.
I saw it today and thought it is very powerful. Granted, I believe in the basis for the film, so that makes me an unobjective viewer, but even so, I'd think that a non-believer would find such a person compelling.
Due to the focus of the movie and its' inherent time restrictions the Jesus character isn't deep, but then Gibson's target audience was a demographic who would be familiar with the portagonist. Instead it portrays the sacrifice he gave and the collective guilt we have in crucifying him.
On a technical note, I have only one issue that I found demonstrably incorrect, and that is something which is a common misperception: the placement of the nails in the hands. Crucified criminals did not have the nails driven through the palms, but rather between the two bones in the forearm. If the weight of the body was hanging from a spike in the hand, the person's weight would make the nails rip out letting the body fall. Instead the nail caught on the wrist bone supporting the body as he sagged from exhaustion.
More in a bit...
Totem
Due to the focus of the movie and its' inherent time restrictions the Jesus character isn't deep, but then Gibson's target audience was a demographic who would be familiar with the portagonist. Instead it portrays the sacrifice he gave and the collective guilt we have in crucifying him.
On a technical note, I have only one issue that I found demonstrably incorrect, and that is something which is a common misperception: the placement of the nails in the hands. Crucified criminals did not have the nails driven through the palms, but rather between the two bones in the forearm. If the weight of the body was hanging from a spike in the hand, the person's weight would make the nails rip out letting the body fall. Instead the nail caught on the wrist bone supporting the body as he sagged from exhaustion.
More in a bit...
Totem
That's the problem I've always had with crucifixion depictions.
Recent Visitors: 234
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (234)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Passion of the Christ, your thoughts
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC