OT: The Passion of the Christ movie

[Renegade 13]

Originally posted by Mephisto:
We at the SEIV forum have traveld the OT road before and with much more heat. All the people that went on this road are still here and still talking to one another so I see no need to cut this one road short.

"With much more heat" ?? That's possible??

And I have one request: I've noticed a couple of Posts have been edited by a moderator. Now, I didn't see them before they were edited, and I probably wouldn't have been offended even if I had read them. But I'd just like this to be a civilized conversation, so please don't post stuff that might be taken in an unintended way, or offensive subject matter. Like I said, it doesn't bother me, but it might bother some people.

As some other's would say, just my $0.02

[TerranC]

Originally posted by Renegade 13:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mephisto:
We at the SEIV forum have traveld the OT road before and with much more heat. All the people that went on this road are still here and still talking to one another so I see no need to cut this one road short.

"With much more heat" ?? That's possible??

---

Do a search on Iraq. You'll see what he's talking about then.

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by TerranC:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Renegade 13:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mephisto:
We at the SEIV forum have traveld the OT road before and with much more heat. All the people that went on this road are still here and still talking to one another so I see no need to cut this one road short.

"With much more heat" ?? That's possible??

---

Do a search on Iraq. You'll see what he's talking about then.

---

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.

[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.