OT: The Passion of the Christ movie

[solops]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
So is this movie worth seeing or should we just wait until its on DVD and rent it?

If you are not a Christian then don't bother. It would likely have little meaning or virtue.

If you are a Christian then you MIGHT want to see it. My Sunday school class went to see it. 12 people came away with twelve completely different experiences, ranging from "what an aweful bloodbath" to "sublime". I found it well done and deeply moving in many ways...and I never want to see it again.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
What has gone on in the past is up for change. Shrapnel is beginning to take an interest in the Boards. Everything has its pros and cons, including shrapnels interest.

I had not the impression that in the past when Richard surfed the board Shrapnel had no interest in the Boards.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Mephisto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
What has gone on in the past is up for change. Shrapnel is beginning to take an interest in the Boards. Everything has its pros and cons, including shrapnels interest.

I had not the impression that in the past when Richard surfed the board Shrapnel had no interest in the Boards.

---

I also did not get any such impression. The impression that I got was that Shrapnel was always perfectly ok with OT discussions.

[ May 26, 2004, 05:44: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Simeron]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Simeron:
As long as the religion does not seek to impose its view/tenants/MO on people through force but by choice, then its fine. I may think its wrong but, that is my choice.

Slight problem ... civilization is based upon some group imposing and enforcing some portion of their beliefs on others - else, on what basis can you hunt down a murderer? Sure, he's a murder by YOUR views (and perhaps the views of a very large number of people/large percentage of the population) but it is quite possible that in his views, it is quite reasonable to kill someone over what the rest of us would consider something minor. But if you hunt him down for it, you are effectively forcing your set of rules on him, no?

Originally posted by Simeron:
But when you get to the point of saying "if you don't follow our religion you will be punished" THEN I have a problem with it. Because you are now moving from the tenants of FAITH to a political system based on a belief.

All political systems are based on a belief of some sort - not necessarily in a diety of any kind, but in some belief - Capitalism is based on the belief that greed can be harnessed for the good of most; Socialism is based on the belief that people are responsible enough to work towards the common good without a "large" rewards system; Democracy is based on the belief that the masses can, on average, make good policy decisions; Despotism is based on the belief that one strong leader will run things best (although "best" is subject to interpertation - in many instances, that becomes "best ... for the despot").

Originally posted by Simeron:

You might cloak your politics in religious vestments but, its still POLITICAL and has NOTHING to do with faith.

That's true of many portions of politics, such as recource allocations, contract-enforcement strategies, road routes, economic planning, et cetera; I can't agree with it on such things as the definition of person for use in determining whether a given action is murder or not.

Originally posted by Simeron:

How can I say that? Because faith has nothing to do with the machanics of religion, it is a personal belief and therefore, can not be forced, imposed or directed from outside in any way. Faith ALWAYS comes from within to the without.

Religion ALWAYS comes from without to the within.

In which Category would you put ethics (e.g., the commandments "Thou Shalt Not Murder" and "Thou Shalt Not Steal")?

Originally posted by Simeron:
When this makes it where you begin to try to impose your ways on others, then you have crossed the line from faith to religion. At that point, you have become the enemy of everyone including those of the faith you profess because you have now become a threat to others whereas before, you were no threat to others at all.

It is when people become a threat that action MUST be taken to remove that threat.

And yet, you would impose a portion of your own views on others, which could be paraphrased as: "Don't impose your own views on others." That seems a little contradictory. But maybe that's just me.

---

Perhaps but you will see that while I am using my own views I am not imposing them on others but in fact am reacting to an outside force. That is the major difference.

Being reactive is not the same as being proactive. Proactive is the place where you have the problems, not the reactive.

So in the case of the murderer, the murderer already took it upon themselves to impose THIER views on the victim so, by hunting them down you are being reactive to thier crossing the line first. If they never killed in the first place then you would not be doing anything to them hence, you would not be imposing your views at all.

Murder is something that is very easy to determine in many cases as the victim simply did not deserve to die due to not doing anything to anyone. When the victim has actually done something is where the case could be made that the killer was reacting to the victim. But again, you must put it back to the test of who is being proactive and who is being reactive.

Did the "murderer" react to a threat or did they proactively kill to enforce thier own code of ethics?

Ethics is a political choice whereas Morals is a faith based one. A simple proof is Morals are more or less from within but Ethics come from without. Most children know it is not good to hurt another child but, taking thier toy on the other hand has to be taught to them.

So, while the case can be made that by reacting to someone is "imposing" my views on them it still leaves the imputus on the other side as it is thier actions that trigger my actions to stop them. The proactive side is the one that starts the movement.

[Simeron]

As for the movie, I personally found it okay. Nothing super spiritual but also nothing shockingly horrorful. Of course, being a medival and ancient history buff I understood the principle of Roman torture/punishment rather well and being a devote Christian, I understood exactly how horrid the price Jesus paid for me was, at least as much as a man can I suppose.

One thing I thought was very well done was the scenes where Satan was there, whispering. I do think the movie was very well done, well acted and well written and did exactly what Mel Gibson intented for it to do which, personally, I think was to awaken people to the story of Jesus as it pertained to His death and resurrection.

If you are a Christian, I highly recommend you go and see it if for no other reason than to be able to discuss it with knowledge when it inevitably comes up in discussion.

If you are NOT a Christian, I say it would still be a good movie to watch if you wanted to see a well done movie able the death of Jesus as it pertains to the Christian faith.

If you don't really care about Jesus's trial and death as it pertains to the Christian faith then no, I wouldn't recommend going to see it as you will not enjoy it at all as that is the gist of the movie and the crux of the material contained within it.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Simeron:
Perhaps but you will see that while I am using my own views I am not imposing them on others but in fact am reacting to an outside force. That is the major difference.

Being reactive is not the same as being proactive. Proactive is the place where you have the problems, not the reactive.

So in the case of the murderer, the murderer already took it upon themselves to impose THIER views on the victim so, by hunting them down you are being reactive to thier crossing the line first. If they never killed in the first place then you would not be doing anything to them hence, you would not be imposing your views at all.

Murder is something that is very easy to determine in many cases as the victim simply did not deserve to die due to not doing anything to anyone. When the victim has actually done something is where the case could be made that the killer was reacting to the victim. But again, you must put it back to the test of who is being proactive and who is being reactive.

Did the "murderer" react to a threat or did they proactively kill to enforce thier own code of ethics?

Ethics is a political choice whereas Morals is a faith based one. A simple proof is Morals are more or less from within but Ethics come from without. Most children know it is not good to hurt another child but, taking thier toy on the other hand has to be taught to them.

Those aren't quite the standard definitions of ethics and morality - the standard definition would be more along the lines of "ethics are rules to live by, moraility is how well they are followed". Your definitions will work well enough for this discussion, however.

Originally posted by Simeron:

So, while the case can be made that by reacting to someone is "imposing" my views on them it still leaves the imputus on the other side as it is thier actions that trigger my actions to stop them. The proactive side is the one that starts the movement.

*shrug* the murderer is being reactive if he's, say, avenging an insult to his family's honor, or if the victim was was going to get a law passed that would make the murderer's current livelyhood illegal (to pull a situation out of history: whale hunting), or if the victim was tresspassing, and such. In such cases, the victim was forcing a small portion of his/her ethics on the murderer: In the case of the insult, from the victim's POV, that wasn't a deadly insult, it was a jape; such things should be limited to verbal sparring only - he should have just taken the insult or insulted right back. In the case of making whaling illeagal, the victim's ethics say courtroom battles should stay courtroom battles, while the murderer is responding to a threat to his livelyhood that he doesn't know how to fight in the originating arena (the field of law), and so brings the fight to an arena he knows (guns and brute force). In the case of the tresspassing, perhaps the victim believed that the ground doesn't belong to us, we belong to "mother earth", thus there are no property rights, and the victim believs he should be able to go where he pleases, regardless of the five foot chain-link fence with the "no tresspassing" signs. Sure, FOR US, none of those would be sufficient cause to kill someone - but those are our ethics, our morality - not necessarily the murderer's. For him (or her, I suppose, but most convicted murderers are male), the victim was forcing a portion of the victim's ethics onto the murderer, causing the victim to be a threat, and thus someone to take action against.

Remember also, however, in the case of accomplished murder, that the murderer is not forcing his ethics on those who hunt down the murderer (after all, the murderer has already applied all the force, and the person forced is no longer in a position to be reactive) - so those hunting down the murderer are being proactive, not reactive.

Few people kill others without some provocation (it happens a lot for many forms of money-related killings such as muggings, and it happens with certain kinds of insanity (sadisim, sociopaths, psychopaths, et cetera), but with most murders (most solved murders, anyway) there is some form of provocation, even if the only one who views the "provocation" as such is the murderer) - who is reactive and who is proactive is often (if not always) a matter of perspective. Whose perspective gets enforced? Who choses which perspective? Why that perspective? Why that person? Any possible answer to such questions is very likely to ultimately end up being a case of one person/group of people imposing a portion of their ethics onto others - which you stated you are against.

That, and there are other issues: what do you do about a factory owner whose factory is putting out waste products that are slowly poisoning the ground water that people's wells draw on? He isn't forcing his ethics on anyone - he's not forcing anyone else to pollute; he's not preventing anyone else from containing the waste products of their factories - and yet his actions are potentially fatal to many other people.

I just have the odd habit of finding bizzare angles to look at things from, usually for purposes of analyzing the self-consistancy of a viewpoint.

[Simeron]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

*shrug* the murderer is being reactive if he's, say, avenging an insult to his family's honor, or if the victim was was going to get a law passed that would make the murderer's current livelyhood illegal (to pull a situation out of history: whale hunting), or if the victim was tresspassing, and such. In such cases, the victim was forcing a small portion of his/her ethics on the murderer: In the case of the insult, from the victim's POV, that wasn't a deadly insult, it was a jape; such things should be limited to verbal sparring only - he should have just taken the insult or insulted right back. In the case of making whaling illeagal, the victim's ethics say courtroom battles should stay courtroom battles, while the murderer is responding to a threat to his livelyhood that he doesn't know how to fight in the originating arena (the field of law), and so brings the fight to an arena he knows (guns and brute force). In the case of the tresspassing, perhaps the victim believed that the ground doesn't belong to us, we belong to "mother earth", thus there are no property rights, and the victim believs he should be able to go where he pleases, regardless of the five foot chain-link fence with the "no tresspassing" signs. Sure, FOR US, none of those would be sufficient cause to kill someone - but those are our ethics, our morality - not necessarily the murderer's. For him (or her, I suppose, but most convicted murderers are male), the victim was forcing a portion of the victim's ethics onto the murderer, causing the victim to be a threat, and thus someone to take action against.

Remember also, however, in the case of accomplished murder, that the murderer is not forcing his ethics on those who hunt down the murderer (after all, the murderer has already applied all the force, and the person forced is no longer in a position to be reactive) - so those hunting down the murderer are being proactive, not reactive.

Few people kill others without some provocation (it happens a lot for many forms of money-related killings such as muggings, and it happens with certain kinds of insanity (sadisim, sociopaths, psychopaths, et cetera), but with most murders (most solved murders, anyway) there is some form of provocation, even if the only one who views the "provocation" as such is the murderer) - who is reactive and who is proactive is often (if not always) a matter of perspective. Whose perspective gets enforced? Who choses which perspective? Why that perspective? Why that person? Any possible answer to such questions is very likely to ultimately end up being a case of one person/group of people imposing a portion of their ethics onto others - which you stated you are against.

That, and there are other issues: what do you do about a factory owner whose factory is putting out waste products that are slowly poisoning the ground water that people's wells draw on? He isn't forcing his ethics on anyone - he's not forcing anyone else to pollute; he's not preventing anyone else from containing the waste products of their factories - and yet his actions are potentially fatal to many other people.

I just have the odd habit of finding bizzare angles to look at things from, usually for purposes of analyzing the self-consistancy of a viewpoint. [/QB][/quote]


******************************************


Oh, I don't mind at all, in fact I rather like doing the same thing myself *grins evilly*.

Now, back to what you were saying. Actually, in the case of the whale hunting the murder is in fact becoming the proactive part when they force a change in venue from courtroom to violence.

In the case of the tresspasser, they are being proactive by imposing thier view of "mother earth" on the person who owns the property.

In the case of someone that has murdered someone being hunted down for the murder, you are in fact being reactive because you are reacting to the fact they murdered someone though the arguement could be made that you are in fact being proactive in that you're attempting to stop them from murdering again thus imposing that on them.

In the case of the factory owner that is slowly poisoning the wells I have to disagree with the point you made that he is not imposing his ethics, or lack thereof, on the well owners as he is in fact doing just that by poisoning the wells. The method of poisoning does not matter so how he is choosing to do it doesn't matter be it through factory waste or dumping poison directly into the water table, which you could argue he is doing in the first place.

In the case of avenging the family honor, the murderer is being reactive indeed but being proactive in seeking out the one insulting the family honor and murdering them though, again, the arguement could be made they are justified just as someone would be seeking out the murderer in the first place.

But, the original premise was the current situation in the middle east which is clearly where some people are imposing thier personal views of Islam upon others and taking it to the extreme of punishing (including murdering) people in the name of the religion. (not faith of Muslim).

As a wise person once said, for almost every rule there will be some exception, even this one.



[ May 26, 2004, 07:42: Message edited by: Simeron ]

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Simeron:
Oh, I don't mind at all, in fact I rather like doing the same thing myself *grins evilly*.

Now, back to what you were saying. Actually, in the case of the whale hunting the murder is in fact becoming the proactive part when they force a change in venue from courtroom to violence.

A matter of perspective only; can you honestly expect, say, a 30-year old man, not rich but keeping a roof over his head and food on the table for himself and his family, without other prospects for a job, without the knoweledge to fight things out in court, without the money to hire someone with that knoweledge, to go into "battle" in the courts, completely outmatched, when the stakes are, for him, poverty and likely slow death for himself and his family by starvation? Or does it make more sense for him to kill the one pushing the law in indirect defense of his and his family's lives?

Originally posted by Simeron:

In the case of the tresspasser, they are being proactive by imposing thier view of "mother earth" on the person who owns the property.

No, the property owner is being proactive by willfully withholding the good and proper use of the land that belongs to no human being / is the collective property of all.

From the property owner's perspective, the property owner is being reactive, and the Earth worshipper is being proactive.

From the tresspasser's perspective, the tresspasser is being reactive and the ground ursurper is being proactive.

And yet, you picked a perspective, and said (paraphrasing here) "this man is in the right, this man is in the wrong, because this man is only preventing his own beliefs from being trampled under another's, while the other is the one trying to do the trampling" (pun recognized, but not intended)

Originally posted by Simeron:

In the case of someone that has murdered someone being hunted down for the murder, you are in fact being reactive because you are reacting to the fact they murdered someone though the arguement could be made that you are in fact being proactive in that you're attempting to stop them from murdering again thus imposing that on them.

Ah, but there is a secondary problem with hunting a murderer: What defines a person and thus a potential target for murder? What constitutes sufficient cause for killing a person? Both of those fall under either ethics or morals. What right have you to force your definitions of the two on another? If an eco-fanatic kills whalers because they are murderers (the "Whales are people too" perspective), should the fanatic be hunted for murder, or not? If a 1800 slave owner kills a slave because the slave tried to escape, should the slave owner be hunted for murder, or not? Does this change if the slave owner does not consider the slave a person, but property?

Originally posted by Simeron:
In the case of the factory owner that is slowly poisoning the wells I have to disagree with the point you made that he is not imposing his ethics, or lack thereof, on the well owners as he is in fact doing just that by poisoning the wells. The method of poisoning does not matter so how he is choosing to do it doesn't matter be it through factory waste or dumping poison directly into the water table, which you could argue he is doing in the first place.

It could be so argued - and yet, it could also be argued that he is only dumping on property he owns - he believes he has the good and proper right to do as he wills with his own property. He is not necessarily aware he is doing any harm to others (as was the case with many of the earliest such cases). Besides, people should always take sensible percautions - you wouldn't blame a construction-site owner for the death of a pedestrian who ignored the "no tresspassing" fence and signs then got hit by falling debris on the construction site - not passing "no tresspassing" signs is a sensible percaution. It's also sensible to purify the water one drinks before drinking it - after all, many sources of water are contaminated by natural actions (e.g., animal wastse encouraging bacteria harmful to people) - would you hold nature accountable for that form of well poisoning? It all depends on the angle one looks at things from - how do you decide whose angle takes precidence? In so doing, you are forcing a portion of your beliefs on others. By what right do you do so?

Originally posted by Simeron:
In the case of avenging the family honor, the murderer is being reactive indeed but being proactive in seeking out the one insulting the family honor and murdering them though, again, the arguement could be made they are justified just as someone would be seeking out the murderer in the first place.

Again, depending on perspective, he's doing either - the insulter is proactively attacking the insultee's honor, from the insultee's perspective, and thus the insultee is being reactive; the insultee is being proactive in searching out and killing the insulter over an "imagined slight" (from the insulter's perspective) and so the insulter is a completely innocent party. By what criteria should the two opposing perspectives be evaluated? By what right can such criteria be dictated?

Originally posted by Simeron:

But, the original premise was the current situation in the middle east which is clearly where some people are imposing thier personal views of Islam upon others and taking it to the extreme of punishing (including murdering) people in the name of the religion. (not faith of Muslim).

The examples are merely tools to illustrate a point where it is easier to illustrate - in many, many cases (possibly all) who is the proactive one is entierly a point of view. Even in the case of the extremeists killing for their faith have a perspective from which what they do is right.

Personally, I'm an absolutist - such extremists are murderers, and should be tried and executed. Of course, such extremeists are absolutists too, and two absolutists who disagree will always do so. No help for it. Neither side is willing to yield. War (of some form - not all wars involve shooting people) is essentially inevitable. Pity. Avenging mere insults with killing is horridly outdated; the insultee is a murderer, and needs to be tried on that basis. The property owner in the tresspassing case is using excessive force - he has a right to his property, but barring national-security level military installations or some such, he has no right to kill to prevent someone from walking there. Whales aren't people - the whalers are. It's possible to learn a new trade. Et cetera. I'm an absolutist - I don't need a debateable reason for my judgements. Everything lies on unproveable assumptions anyway, might as well assume everything. Sometimes this results in war. Sometimes war is necessary. No help for it.

Originally posted by Simeron:


As a wise person once said, for almost every rule there will be some exception, even this one.

Yet, in picking which cases need exceptions, you are forcing one set of ethics on one or more parties (in an arbitrary manner, even) - in that manner, the position is self-contradictory. Absolutism is only self-contradictory if there are "rules" in the same set that contradict each other, or themselves - and even that is not an issue if you tack on priorities.

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by Mephisto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
What has gone on in the past is up for change. Shrapnel is beginning to take an interest in the Boards. Everything has its pros and cons, including shrapnels interest.

I had not the impression that in the past when Richard surfed the board Shrapnel had no interest in the Boards.

---

Well it now looks like our little planet has finally been noticed by the bigger one. We are now ripe for conquest.

Time to rally the dogs of war!

[Member 4148]

Originally posted by Atrocities:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mephisto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
What has gone on in the past is up for change. Shrapnel is beginning to take an interest in the Boards. Everything has its pros and cons, including shrapnels interest.

I had not the impression that in the past when Richard surfed the board Shrapnel had no interest in the Boards.

---

Well it now looks like our little planet has finally been noticed by the bigger one. We are now ripe for conquest.

Time to rally the dogs of war!

---

relacks teh rumurs were exagerated