I think Alchemedies noted an itty bitty thing about Stalin's atrocities earlier---let me add Pol Pot, and Mr. Mao to that list. Nobody, but nobody, kills like the pagans.
When you look at what Christianity did during the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the "conquest" of the New World, it's quite easy to see that Christianity and Christians aren't exactly innocents themselves. For Christians to go around saying that "teh pagans" are "atrocious killers" would be like the pot calling the kettle black.
For the Pagans (and I use that term VERY loosly) on these forums
What really bothers me is how some Christians use the term "Pagan" to refer to someone or something that isn't Christian the way someone might use the word "Nigger" to refer to someone of an American of African descent, or "Faggot" to refer to someone who is gay or lesbian. Either way, it's grossly disrespectful at best, and disgustingly immoral at the worst.
To make things fair, I guess the other non-Christian people on these boards should refer to Christians as "Jesus Freaks".
So would that make me a Jesus Freak Faggot or a Jesus Faggot? Or a Faggot Freak?
The gentleman was simply pointing out your insensitive arrogance. The fact is, there are a lot of people who are proud of their pagan heritage, and rightly so, and a lot of people who are ashamed of the arrogance of thier fellow christians, and also rightly so. Christianity hasn't proved itself superior to paganism or any other form of worship. It has however been considerably more brutal in attacking those who don't believe what they believe than many other religions. Some see that as a sign of superiority. Most of us just see it for what it is. Cruel indifference and cultural genocide. Christ never advocated either.
The gentleman was simply pointing out your insensitive arrogance.
MY insensitive arrogance?!? Please show me where I referred to anyone as a "pagan."
Quote:
The fact is, there are a lot of people who are proud of their pagan heritage, and rightly so, and a lot of people who are ashamed of the arrogance of thier fellow christians, and also rightly so.
Hello, yes. I'm part of the latter group, you stupid bink.
Quote:
Christianity hasn't proved itself superior to paganism or any other form of worship.
Never claimed it did.
Quote:
It has however been considerably more brutal in attacking those who don't believe what they believe than many other religions.
And considerably less brutal than many other religions. And overall, a force for good.
And considerably less brutal than many other religions. And overall, a force for good.
Kirk [/B][/QUOTE]
Pick between Budhism, Hinduism, Islam and Christianity. Is there an argument? The only one that comes close might be Islam, since the rise of Muslim Fundamentalists, but historicly, the Christian crusades stand out as the prime example of Religious inspired slaughter in history. All those religions are also an overall force for good. lets not start pretending Christians have a lock on the goodness department. That would be Christian arrogance showing it's ugly head again.
Pick between Budhism, Hinduism, Islam and Christianity. Is there an argument?
Plenty of arguments. Aside from Buddhism, all three of the other religions have a great deal of blood on their hands. Islam was spread violently by the sword through the Middle East in a campaign at least as cruel as much of the Crusades.
Quote:
All those religions are also an overall force for good. lets not start pretending Christians have a lock on the goodness department.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth you Christian-hating bigot! I never claimed that Christianity had a lock on "the goodness department." So don't imply that I did.
"And considerably less brutal than many other religions. And overall, a force for good."
Me thinks thou dost protest too much Mr. Kirkland. If you knew anything at all about the History of Hinduism and Islam you wouldn't be making such claims. But just to fill you in, Hinduism and Islam are both religions that have made a habit of getting conquered and then converting those that conquered them. There have been times as in the fall of Constantinople when after converting the main Christian Cathedral into a mosque, they still allowed Christians to worship there. Contrast that to the Crusaders who on taking Muslim communities left bodies piled high in the streets. Hinduism has a great history of inclusion, probably incorporating more than 300 other religions, and allowing local gods and practices.
If you knew anything at all about the History of Hinduism and Islam you wouldn't be making such claims.
I know a great deal about world history in general. So don't presume to lecture me.
Quote:
But just to fill you in, Hinduism and Islam are both religions that have made a habit of getting conquered and then converting those that conquered them.
Sometimes. Islam also tore across the Middle East and North Africa in an "evangelizing" period that was very, very violent at times. To say nothing of the scourge of Islamic terrorism in the modern world.
Quote:
Contrast that to the Crusaders who on taking Muslim communities left bodies piled high in the streets.
I am not defending the Crusades, nor denying evil acts done in the name of Christianity. Get that through your thick skull.
Quote:
Hinduism has a great history of inclusion, probably incorporating more than 300 other religions, and allowing local gods and practices.
Yeah. I mean, just look how lovingly they're treating the Muslim minority in India right now.
In any case, I'm through with you. You're an anti-Christian bigot and hatemonger, and not worth my time.
[BNot really. Divine God-Man cults and mystery religions abounded in the BCE/CE world. Including ones which had all the hallmarks of the Jesus story (divine birth, self-sacrifice, return to glorious life). Mithrias is a fairly well-known pseudo-Christ story.
Kirk [/B]
Don't forget Christ as he relates to ontological trinity. This is completely unique.
Howdy folks, The Passion is less than $3 million away from breaking into the top 20 R-rated films of all time. It will break into the top 100 of all movies in a day or two.
Norfa, I really like half of what you say and really disagree with the rest!
The Hindu religion doesn't have a record of forced conversions and violence because... it isn't really a religion.
You have polytheistic Hindus, atheist Hindus, monotheistic Hindus and Hindus who worship a stone standing in the middle of their village. Hinduism has no founder, no prophets, no hard and fast rules for eating or preparing food and a million different feast days in the year. It's non-violent because it's incorporative, so Hindus in the north of India used to mourn the death of Imam Hussain, Muhammed's grandson (like the poor people in Iraq were doing yesterday) by joining the processions and beating their breasts, and why Jesus is considered by some to be a divine avatar like Krisna.
It's really complicated (too complicated for me, anyway) but there haven't been any mass forced-conversions by Hindus because, basically, Muslims and Christians can be Hindus too. At a stretch. Anyway, it's not an evangelising religion.
'Islam', on the other hand, is a word that means 'submission', and you can be forced to 'submit' (in one of the word's more aggressive interpretations.) Islam has a long history of forced conversion and wars over doctrine, and wars of conquest waged under pretext, just like Christianity. Look at the descendants of sub-Saharan Africans taken to North Africa, India and Saudi Arabia as slaves. It's no 'better' and no 'worse' than any other religion, intrinsically. It's an accident of culture and technology that it's been so successful.
Basically, there's something about monotheistic religions that make them really good at fundamentalism and conquering and stuff. I think they suck. If I were religious I'd go for a bunch of gods.
Yeah. I mean, just look how lovingly they're treating the Muslim minority in India right now.
It's awful, you're right, but it's a very, very recent phenomenon, Hindu fundamentalism like this.
It's interesting, but these zealots (followers of the BJP ) are generally hard-core followers of Rama who are asserting that Rama - one god out of the thousands that most Hindus are quite comfortable with - is the symbol of the goodness and strength of all Hindus. They're trying, actually, to make Hinduism a monotheistic religion rather than the incorporative tradition / culture / world-view it's always been.
They're fascists, really. India's quite scary right now.
Howdy folks, The Passion is less than $3 million away from breaking into the top 20 R-rated films of all time. It will break into the top 100 of all movies in a day or two.
Elvis sold more records than Jesus and your 'ontological trinity' is a load of shit because there's no such thing as original sin.
I just got back from seeing the film and I have to say, this was the worst Jesus movie I've ever seen. The violence that everyone is talking about was as comical as Kill Bill. There were many parts where I just burst out laughing at the foley work. "Uuuuuuuuugh (drip) uuuuuuuuuuugh (drip)". C'mon Mel you spent how much and this was the best you could do? The film failed as a work of art and failed to move me on any emotional level except humor.
Then there were the historical inaccuracies. Lost of scenes from the last supper. The last supper was a Passover seder. What makes this night different from all other nights? On this night we eat unleavened bread when on all other nights we eat both leavened and unleavened bread. What's that Mel? Jesus should have been eating matzah and not pita bread? Whoops.
Oh, the movie was completely devoid of any spirituality.
The best way to think about this movie is it's like going to a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert and not hearing Freebird.
Don't forget Christ as he relates to ontological trinity. This is completely unique.
Yes, the Trinity makes Christ unique when compared to many of the other God-Man creatures, but the notion of one God in many forms is not unique to Christianity, either. Hinduism features gods with many avatars, and also the notion that there is but one divine, which is composed of many interconnected but discrete parts, sort of a super-Trinity.
Uh, let's not let this thread begin its final descent just yet. If we can keep off each others' backs about the tone and behavior of others' replies and focus instead on the content of their replies, this thing has a long and fruitful life ahead of it. Muchos gracias.
----------
As for the topic, I think one disconnect here is whether the movie is supposed to be faithful to the gospel(s) or to history/facts as we know them, whether there is a difference between those things and if so, how much. Seems to me that ol' Mel made a movie of the Passion through the reading of the Gospel of St. Matthew. I don't consider it a historical document at all, not the kind of thing where my dad, an avid history buff, would be counting buttons and noticing which way they tied their shoe laces (er, sandal laces ). I'd say it sounds like a very visceral movie, but I wouldn't confuse it with being a literal once, a reconstruction of events. Its effectiveness as conveying spiritual ideas through physical means is more dubious perhaps. But, I haven't seen the movie, so it's all hearsay.
I have heard and read much criticism of Mel Gibson's _The Passion_ and wanted to weigh in on this movie.
There has been quite a bit of criticism concerning the level of violence in this movie. Considering the ambient level of violence in our media and culture, these criticisms sound hollow. Fantastic violence and sadism are a _staple_ of our popular entertainment; criticizing _The Passion_ for being violent is hypocritical. A good example of this violence is in _Bad Boys II_ , which at one point features Will Smith driving over naked cadavers in a high-speed car chase in downtown Miami. The violence portrayed in _The Passion_ is minor in comparison, especially when you consider that the violence in the entertainment industry is frequently used to elicit and titillate base and sexual impulses.
Generally speaking, accounts of the crucifixion are drawn from the Psalms and the Gospels and have been held as factual by most Christians for nearly two thousand years. The level of brutality, methods of punishment, etc., of the era in which Christ lived are matters of historical fact. It isn't much of a stretch to put 2 and 2 together and create a presentation, albeit somewhat stylized, of what Christ endured. Crucifixion was a common form of execution at that time. It is said that the Romans actually ran out of trees when crucifying rebels after the sack of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
In reality, these criticisms of _The Passion_ originate from a form of culture shock. We are separated by continents, cultures, and thousands of years from the death of Christ. The realities of that event have become detached and dulled for many. When I saw this movie on Saturday, _The Passion _ made the crucifixion visually real, erasing the centuries between me and the actual event. The violence in _The Passion_ gave me pause, but for all the right reasons.
Comments
Originally posted by dmz
I think Alchemedies noted an itty bitty thing about Stalin's atrocities earlier---let me add Pol Pot, and Mr. Mao to that list. Nobody, but nobody, kills like the pagans.
When you look at what Christianity did during the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the "conquest" of the New World, it's quite easy to see that Christianity and Christians aren't exactly innocents themselves. For Christians to go around saying that "teh pagans" are "atrocious killers" would be like the pot calling the kettle black.
I mean, maybe even Hitler was influenced by Christianity.
For the Pagans (and I use that term VERY loosly) on these forums
What really bothers me is how some Christians use the term "Pagan" to refer to someone or something that isn't Christian the way someone might use the word "Nigger" to refer to someone of an American of African descent, or "Faggot" to refer to someone who is gay or lesbian. Either way, it's grossly disrespectful at best, and disgustingly immoral at the worst.
To make things fair, I guess the other non-Christian people on these boards should refer to Christians as "Jesus Freaks".
Originally posted by Kirkland
So would that make me a Jesus Freak Faggot or a Jesus Faggot? Or a Faggot Freak?
The gentleman was simply pointing out your insensitive arrogance. The fact is, there are a lot of people who are proud of their pagan heritage, and rightly so, and a lot of people who are ashamed of the arrogance of thier fellow christians, and also rightly so. Christianity hasn't proved itself superior to paganism or any other form of worship. It has however been considerably more brutal in attacking those who don't believe what they believe than many other religions. Some see that as a sign of superiority. Most of us just see it for what it is. Cruel indifference and cultural genocide. Christ never advocated either.
http://www.theonion.com/news/
Originally posted by norfa
The gentleman was simply pointing out your insensitive arrogance.
MY insensitive arrogance?!? Please show me where I referred to anyone as a "pagan."
The fact is, there are a lot of people who are proud of their pagan heritage, and rightly so, and a lot of people who are ashamed of the arrogance of thier fellow christians, and also rightly so.
Hello, yes. I'm part of the latter group, you stupid bink.
Christianity hasn't proved itself superior to paganism or any other form of worship.
Never claimed it did.
It has however been considerably more brutal in attacking those who don't believe what they believe than many other religions.
And considerably less brutal than many other religions. And overall, a force for good.
Kirk
Kirk [/B][/QUOTE]
Pick between Budhism, Hinduism, Islam and Christianity. Is there an argument? The only one that comes close might be Islam, since the rise of Muslim Fundamentalists, but historicly, the Christian crusades stand out as the prime example of Religious inspired slaughter in history. All those religions are also an overall force for good. lets not start pretending Christians have a lock on the goodness department. That would be Christian arrogance showing it's ugly head again.
Pick between Budhism, Hinduism, Islam and Christianity. Is there an argument?
Plenty of arguments. Aside from Buddhism, all three of the other religions have a great deal of blood on their hands. Islam was spread violently by the sword through the Middle East in a campaign at least as cruel as much of the Crusades.
All those religions are also an overall force for good. lets not start pretending Christians have a lock on the goodness department.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth you Christian-hating bigot! I never claimed that Christianity had a lock on "the goodness department." So don't imply that I did.
Kirk
Me thinks thou dost protest too much Mr. Kirkland. If you knew anything at all about the History of Hinduism and Islam you wouldn't be making such claims. But just to fill you in, Hinduism and Islam are both religions that have made a habit of getting conquered and then converting those that conquered them. There have been times as in the fall of Constantinople when after converting the main Christian Cathedral into a mosque, they still allowed Christians to worship there. Contrast that to the Crusaders who on taking Muslim communities left bodies piled high in the streets. Hinduism has a great history of inclusion, probably incorporating more than 300 other religions, and allowing local gods and practices.
Originally posted by norfa
If you knew anything at all about the History of Hinduism and Islam you wouldn't be making such claims.
I know a great deal about world history in general. So don't presume to lecture me.
But just to fill you in, Hinduism and Islam are both religions that have made a habit of getting conquered and then converting those that conquered them.
Sometimes. Islam also tore across the Middle East and North Africa in an "evangelizing" period that was very, very violent at times. To say nothing of the scourge of Islamic terrorism in the modern world.
Contrast that to the Crusaders who on taking Muslim communities left bodies piled high in the streets.
I am not defending the Crusades, nor denying evil acts done in the name of Christianity. Get that through your thick skull.
Hinduism has a great history of inclusion, probably incorporating more than 300 other religions, and allowing local gods and practices.
Yeah. I mean, just look how lovingly they're treating the Muslim minority in India right now.
In any case, I'm through with you. You're an anti-Christian bigot and hatemonger, and not worth my time.
Originally posted by Kirkland
[BNot really. Divine God-Man cults and mystery religions abounded in the BCE/CE world. Including ones which had all the hallmarks of the Jesus story (divine birth, self-sacrifice, return to glorious life). Mithrias is a fairly well-known pseudo-Christ story.
Kirk [/B]
Don't forget Christ as he relates to ontological trinity. This is completely unique.
The Hindu religion doesn't have a record of forced conversions and violence because... it isn't really a religion.
You have polytheistic Hindus, atheist Hindus, monotheistic Hindus and Hindus who worship a stone standing in the middle of their village. Hinduism has no founder, no prophets, no hard and fast rules for eating or preparing food and a million different feast days in the year. It's non-violent because it's incorporative, so Hindus in the north of India used to mourn the death of Imam Hussain, Muhammed's grandson (like the poor people in Iraq were doing yesterday) by joining the processions and beating their breasts, and why Jesus is considered by some to be a divine avatar like Krisna.
It's really complicated (too complicated for me, anyway) but there haven't been any mass forced-conversions by Hindus because, basically, Muslims and Christians can be Hindus too. At a stretch. Anyway, it's not an evangelising religion.
'Islam', on the other hand, is a word that means 'submission', and you can be forced to 'submit' (in one of the word's more aggressive interpretations.) Islam has a long history of forced conversion and wars over doctrine, and wars of conquest waged under pretext, just like Christianity. Look at the descendants of sub-Saharan Africans taken to North Africa, India and Saudi Arabia as slaves. It's no 'better' and no 'worse' than any other religion, intrinsically. It's an accident of culture and technology that it's been so successful.
Basically, there's something about monotheistic religions that make them really good at fundamentalism and conquering and stuff. I think they suck. If I were religious I'd go for a bunch of gods.
Originally posted by Kirkland
Yeah. I mean, just look how lovingly they're treating the Muslim minority in India right now.
It's awful, you're right, but it's a very, very recent phenomenon, Hindu fundamentalism like this.
It's interesting, but these zealots (followers of the BJP ) are generally hard-core followers of Rama who are asserting that Rama - one god out of the thousands that most Hindus are quite comfortable with - is the symbol of the goodness and strength of all Hindus. They're trying, actually, to make Hinduism a monotheistic religion rather than the incorporative tradition / culture / world-view it's always been.
They're fascists, really. India's quite scary right now.
Originally posted by dmz
Howdy folks, The Passion is less than $3 million away from breaking into the top 20 R-rated films of all time. It will break into the top 100 of all movies in a day or two.
Elvis sold more records than Jesus and your 'ontological trinity' is a load of shit because there's no such thing as original sin.
Sorry about that and all.
Then there were the historical inaccuracies. Lost of scenes from the last supper. The last supper was a Passover seder. What makes this night different from all other nights? On this night we eat unleavened bread when on all other nights we eat both leavened and unleavened bread. What's that Mel? Jesus should have been eating matzah and not pita bread? Whoops.
Oh, the movie was completely devoid of any spirituality.
The best way to think about this movie is it's like going to a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert and not hearing Freebird.
Originally posted by dmz
Don't forget Christ as he relates to ontological trinity. This is completely unique.
Yes, the Trinity makes Christ unique when compared to many of the other God-Man creatures, but the notion of one God in many forms is not unique to Christianity, either. Hinduism features gods with many avatars, and also the notion that there is but one divine, which is composed of many interconnected but discrete parts, sort of a super-Trinity.
Kirk
Originally posted by norfa
The gentleman was simply pointing out your insensitive arrogance.
If it's someone you should be attacking for being arrogant, it's certainly not Kirkland.
----------
As for the topic, I think one disconnect here is whether the movie is supposed to be faithful to the gospel(s) or to history/facts as we know them, whether there is a difference between those things and if so, how much. Seems to me that ol' Mel made a movie of the Passion through the reading of the Gospel of St. Matthew. I don't consider it a historical document at all, not the kind of thing where my dad, an avid history buff, would be counting buttons and noticing which way they tied their shoe laces (er, sandal laces
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have heard and read much criticism of Mel Gibson's _The Passion_ and wanted to weigh in on this movie.
There has been quite a bit of criticism concerning the level of violence in this movie. Considering the ambient level of violence in our media and culture, these criticisms sound hollow. Fantastic violence and sadism are a _staple_ of our popular entertainment; criticizing _The Passion_ for being violent is hypocritical. A good example of this violence is in _Bad Boys II_ , which at one point features Will Smith driving over naked cadavers in a high-speed car chase in downtown Miami. The violence portrayed in _The Passion_ is minor in comparison, especially when you consider that the violence in the entertainment industry is frequently used to elicit and titillate base and sexual impulses.
Generally speaking, accounts of the crucifixion are drawn from the Psalms and the Gospels and have been held as factual by most Christians for nearly two thousand years. The level of brutality, methods of punishment, etc., of the era in which Christ lived are matters of historical fact. It isn't much of a stretch to put 2 and 2 together and create a presentation, albeit somewhat stylized, of what Christ endured. Crucifixion was a common form of execution at that time. It is said that the Romans actually ran out of trees when crucifying rebels after the sack of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
In reality, these criticisms of _The Passion_ originate from a form of culture shock. We are separated by continents, cultures, and thousands of years from the death of Christ. The realities of that event have become detached and dulled for many. When I saw this movie on Saturday, _The Passion _ made the crucifixion visually real, erasing the centuries between me and the actual event. The violence in _The Passion_ gave me pause, but for all the right reasons.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Originally posted by rampancy
To make things fair, I guess the other non-Christian people on these boards should refer to Christians as "Jesus Freaks".
I think that the "Jesus Freak" sentiment, as subtext, is already here on there boards.