What i would like to know is what makes a religious person believe in God.
i mean, how can you believe in 'this' God and not the "other" ?
What makes you believe that your God is real and other's is not, or do you believe that there are many Gods?
Anyone?
Personally i believe in "something", I believe that there's a force in this universe which is beyond our level of comprehension, but it's one and the same force that started it all for everyone.
I think that one day science may prove that there is "something more" which we just have to accept.
Whether one person was crucified or one million, I think we can agree it is a very cruel and unusual way to put someone to death. Imagine if the electric chair didn't kill you in 30 seconds but 30 hours... the effect is the same essentially. So, I don't think we can dismiss what Christ went through out of hand, because many others also went through it. They're having done so doesn't make it any less agonizing or drawn out.
I suspect you might be more satisfied on the matter if not only Jesus' death were talked about so much, but if others like him that have died since were also paid attention to on a regular basis? IOW, I think your real gripe is not to exclude Jesus' death from the discourse, but to INCLUDE the trials and tribulations of others who "died horrible deaths to avert the death of others". You are correct in that sentiment I think. I just wouldn't reduce the significance of Jesus as a solution but rather increase the significance of those who aren't spoken of often.
Moogs I am most impressed with your posting as of late. You are a master of understanding and reason.
Jesus death was cruel but not unusual compared to other peoples death. A lot of people at that time died just as or even more horrorable deaths. Jesus isn´t mentioned in text from that time outside religious ones so it cant have been that special. The point for me is how on earth can the death of jesus repair the sins made by a man, who raped, tortured and slowly let tens of small children diefrom bleeding to death if he starts believing in him? Was Jesus pain so much greater than that suffered by those little kids?
I am not trying to put other heores up by the side of Jesus, I believe that confronted with certain choices a certaint percentage will do whats right (firefighters 911 and workers and chernobyl) but why put Jesus up there on a piedistale?
I know I am trying to rationalise religion so a satisfying answer for me would be "I just believe so" but I wonder if there is a rationale answer to this.
3. As Rogue Master said, The Gospel of John was written during an intense period of hatred and violence between Jewish Christians and the orthodox Jewish leaders (Pharessies and the like) and hence Jesus is portrayed in the Gospel as really lashing out at the leadership and the author makes a big point of painting the Jewish leadership as responsible for the death and crucifixion of Christ. Christians in general really don't pay much attention to the historical background of biblical books and so things can be misinterpreted.
I'm just starting to read about this historical Jesus stuff, but I've also read that the Gospels were at least partially targeted at Romans, and so blaming it on them wouldn't go over so well. So the role of the Romans in the crucifixion was downplayed, and the role of the Jews was played up: Herod and the Jews were the real bad guys, and Pilate was just a nice guy who did what the Jews wanted. Of course, that's probably utter nonsense and really doesn't make sense in historical context.
[ . . . ]Just doesn't make any sense to be ourtaged over something like this. That's another disease Americans in general have: they love to feel outraged and slighted so that they can bitch about it publicly. Either for sympathy or attention... or something. It's really sad. A culture of victims are we....
I'm not 'outraged' by this movie at all . . . in my earlier Christian days I would have loved to see it . . . back then I was all about "The Passion" . . . you know, loving that martyr suffering thing . . .
I do, and have for a long time, object to basically everything MelG-ish .
I watched Braveheart and saw in it that parodic, absurd, anthemic heroism that characterizes a pretentious suffering-martyr-syndrome:
You know, the rotating hellicopter shot of the lonely hero struggling with his delemma on the tip of a mountain top . . . . bring in the swelling music and ta-da an oscar winner. . .
I hate that kind of cheap emotionalistic manipulation of the audience's lowest and basest feelings . .
also, he is ultra-conservative and hates gays and I don't like him . .
just a note: RE:in order to be a Catholic . . . . I was always under the impression that it was up to the church to say if you are a Catholic or not
i don't think that just anybody can go around and say "I'm Catholic . . . but I hate all that Catholic stuff . . . like the Vatican and Pope and all that"
That seems to be just a tad on the schismatic side to me . . . virtually Protestant-like . . .no?!
P.S. - Maybe the lightning was caused by particle collisions in storm clouds. Hey, stop looking at me like that. What are you doing with that gasoline? Hey, that's wet...
think about it...if it is a movie praising God, then why would God be angry? that makes no sense at all to me.
Unless it was a travesty of God's message
and a form of taking God's name in vien!
In ancient Church history there was a major faction (the Eastern Roman Empire) that even dissallowed any paintings or images of God=
to Make Graven Images!
no?!?!
IT is tantamount to making IDOLS for worship . . . just because you make the label read "Jesus" doesn't mean that teh picture you make really stands for god . . . in fact it would be impossible from the perspective of the Iconoclasts
... to them any man-made image is a form of blasphemy . . . . maybe 'God' thinks so too?
what a kind of hubris to have some measly actor take God's place . . . to make an image out of God!
It's got to be better then Scorcese's "The Last Temptation of Christ", the first twenty minutes of which was pretty much just Willem Dafoe running around in the middle of nowhere constantly yelling: "I hear voices in my head!"
It's got to be better then Scorcese's "The Last Temptation of Christ", the first twenty minutes of which was pretty much just Willem Dafoe running around in the middle of nowhere constantly yelling: "I hear voices in my head!"
But in a respectable New York accent
and the best part of that movie was how all of the apostles had that New York Jewish accent thing going . . . it was funny.
Comments
i mean, how can you believe in 'this' God and not the "other" ?
What makes you believe that your God is real and other's is not, or do you believe that there are many Gods?
Anyone?
Personally i believe in "something", I believe that there's a force in this universe which is beyond our level of comprehension, but it's one and the same force that started it all for everyone.
I think that one day science may prove that there is "something more" which we just have to accept.
Originally posted by Moogs
Whether one person was crucified or one million, I think we can agree it is a very cruel and unusual way to put someone to death. Imagine if the electric chair didn't kill you in 30 seconds but 30 hours... the effect is the same essentially. So, I don't think we can dismiss what Christ went through out of hand, because many others also went through it. They're having done so doesn't make it any less agonizing or drawn out.
I suspect you might be more satisfied on the matter if not only Jesus' death were talked about so much, but if others like him that have died since were also paid attention to on a regular basis? IOW, I think your real gripe is not to exclude Jesus' death from the discourse, but to INCLUDE the trials and tribulations of others who "died horrible deaths to avert the death of others". You are correct in that sentiment I think. I just wouldn't reduce the significance of Jesus as a solution but rather increase the significance of those who aren't spoken of often.
Moogs I am most impressed with your posting as of late. You are a master of understanding and reason.
Fellows
I am not trying to put other heores up by the side of Jesus, I believe that confronted with certain choices a certaint percentage will do whats right (firefighters 911 and workers and chernobyl) but why put Jesus up there on a piedistale?
I know I am trying to rationalise religion so a satisfying answer for me would be "I just believe so" but I wonder if there is a rationale answer to this.
anyhoo, i'm gonna go to see it
Originally posted by mattjohndrow
all i know is that some friggin miracles happened on set-the guy who plays Jesus was struck by lightning 2 times for one thing
anyhoo, i'm gonna go to see it
see . . . even God was angry!
Originally posted by pfflam
see . . . even God was angry!
i'm not thinking it was God, i'm thinking it was Satan trying to make it so the movie would'nt be produced
Originally posted by Naderfan
3. As Rogue Master said, The Gospel of John was written during an intense period of hatred and violence between Jewish Christians and the orthodox Jewish leaders (Pharessies and the like) and hence Jesus is portrayed in the Gospel as really lashing out at the leadership and the author makes a big point of painting the Jewish leadership as responsible for the death and crucifixion of Christ. Christians in general really don't pay much attention to the historical background of biblical books and so things can be misinterpreted.
I'm just starting to read about this historical Jesus stuff, but I've also read that the Gospels were at least partially targeted at Romans, and so blaming it on them wouldn't go over so well. So the role of the Romans in the crucifixion was downplayed, and the role of the Jews was played up: Herod and the Jews were the real bad guys, and Pilate was just a nice guy who did what the Jews wanted. Of course, that's probably utter nonsense and really doesn't make sense in historical context.
Originally posted by Moogs
[ . . . ]Just doesn't make any sense to be ourtaged over something like this. That's another disease Americans in general have: they love to feel outraged and slighted so that they can bitch about it publicly. Either for sympathy or attention... or something. It's really sad. A culture of victims are we....
I'm not 'outraged' by this movie at all . . . in my earlier Christian days I would have loved to see it . . . back then I was all about "The Passion" . . . you know, loving that martyr suffering thing . . .
I do, and have for a long time, object to basically everything MelG-ish .
I watched Braveheart and saw in it that parodic, absurd, anthemic heroism that characterizes a pretentious suffering-martyr-syndrome:
You know, the rotating hellicopter shot of the lonely hero struggling with his delemma on the tip of a mountain top . . . . bring in the swelling music and ta-da an oscar winner. . .
I hate that kind of cheap emotionalistic manipulation of the audience's lowest and basest feelings . .
also, he is ultra-conservative and hates gays and I don't like him . .
just a note: RE:in order to be a Catholic . . . . I was always under the impression that it was up to the church to say if you are a Catholic or not
i don't think that just anybody can go around and say "I'm Catholic . . . but I hate all that Catholic stuff . . . like the Vatican and Pope and all that"
That seems to be just a tad on the schismatic side to me . . . virtually Protestant-like . . .no?!
Originally posted by mattjohndrow
i'm not thinking it was God, i'm thinking it was Satan trying to make it so the movie would'nt be produced
. . oh yeah . . .of course... it was satan
that means Gibson is a prophet right?
P.S. - Maybe the lightning was caused by particle collisions in storm clouds. Hey, stop looking at me like that. What are you doing with that gasoline? Hey, that's wet...
think about it...if it is a movie praising God, then why would God be angry? that makes no sense at all to me.
Originally posted by Ganondorf
Conspiracy Theory was teh l337
1337 = ibbt?
Originally posted by pfflam
1337 = ibbt?
teh 1337 = the leet
Originally posted by mattjohndrow
how do you get that out of what i said?
think about it...if it is a movie praising God, then why would God be angry? that makes no sense at all to me.
Unless it was a travesty of God's message
and a form of taking God's name in vien!
In ancient Church history there was a major faction (the Eastern Roman Empire) that even dissallowed any paintings or images of God=
to Make Graven Images!
no?!?!
IT is tantamount to making IDOLS for worship . . . just because you make the label read "Jesus" doesn't mean that teh picture you make really stands for god . . . in fact it would be impossible from the perspective of the Iconoclasts
... to them any man-made image is a form of blasphemy . . . . maybe 'God' thinks so too?
what a kind of hubris to have some measly actor take God's place . . . to make an image out of God!
Wouldn't that make God angry?
Originally posted by Ganondorf
teh 1337 = the leet
Gotcha . . . misread teh dictionary . . . I'm no leet!
but its nice to see some respect go out to my favorite misspelling: 'teh'
Originally posted by Slackula
It's got to be better then Scorcese's "The Last Temptation of Christ", the first twenty minutes of which was pretty much just Willem Dafoe running around in the middle of nowhere constantly yelling: "I hear voices in my head!"
But in a respectable New York accent
and the best part of that movie was how all of the apostles had that New York Jewish accent thing going . . . it was funny.
Originally posted by rageous
The assistant director was struck twice. Jim Caviezel only got one warning shot from Zeus.
I think it was shot in Italy, so it must have been Jupiter.