Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

Palomar · 2003-08-17 07:23:17

Shaun: "Apparently, there's a scene which shows a crowd of jews baying for Jesus' blood."

*The alleged chanting of the crowd in the scriptures of "Let his blood be upon us and our children." I can certainly understand why the Jewish community is concerned about this -alleged- statement stirring up old hostilities.

Shaun: "It's feared that, if such scenes are released, old christian anti-jewish feelings will be rekindled, based on the old 'It was the damned jews who murdered the Son of God' logic."

*Which also proves that "good Christians" like that obviously aren't as familiar with their holy writ as they'd like others to believe they are: According to the Gospels, Jesus himself said that he was "laying down his life willingly" and that no one could forcibly take his life (kill him).

Shaun: "I've never quite inderstood this logic, even from the point of view of a christian (which I'm not anyhow). The basis of christianity is that the Son of God had to die in order that a vengeful God the Father could forgive humanity its sins.
Sooner or later, somebody had to betray Jesus so he could die! Otherwise all of us would still be destined for the fiery pits of eternal damnation. Or at least that's how I understand the story!
If Jesus was destined to die and the jews were destined to ensure he did die, how can the jews (or Judas for that matter) be held accountable?!"

*What I don't understand is, if all this theology is true, why God/Jehovah had people sacrificing doves and lambs for centuries and centuries, in order to "atone for their sins"...and later decides he needs his son do accomplish this. I'm not being snide or flippant; it's just that the whole scenario doesn't make sense to me. And besides, even if all this were true, it took hundreds of years for the Christian story to reach the ends of the globes. What about all the people who lived and died between the time of Christ's crucifixion and the Gospel story finally being brought to their region of the world?

These are legitimate questions, IMO.

I'm all for freedom of religion...and for freedom -from- it, for those of us who "opt out."

--Cindy

dickbill · 2003-08-17 07:44:38

If Jesus was destined to die and the jews were destined to ensure he did die, how can the jews (or Judas for that matter) be held accountable?!"

About the Jews, they were just Jesus contemporans, saying that he has been betrayed by jews is like saying "jesus was a man, betrayed by men" . Who else could have betrayed Jesus, South African's Zoulous ?

Also to the discharges of the jews, though as I said They don't need discharges, they were there, Jesus was there too, Jesus would have been zoulou, he would have been betrayed by zoulous, so here his the point: some of Jesus brother, family friends etc were with him, some against him. Jews also constituted the first apostles. Actually the first christians WERE Jews. They didn't know they were "christian" probably before a good century after Christ. The first pope, Peter, was Jew. So Jews made the worst and the best of JC's life. It's unfair to retain only the worst.

prometheusunbound · 2003-08-17 11:30:59

Cindy, I can understand your confusion. I hope this will clear it up a bit!

*What I don't understand is, if all this theology is true, why God/Jehovah had people sacrificing doves and lambs for centuries and centuries, in order to "atone for their sins"...and later decides he needs his son do accomplish this. I'm not being snide or flippant; it's just that the whole scenario doesn't make sense to me. And besides, even if all this were true, it took hundreds of years for the Christian story to reach the ends of the globes. What about all the people who lived and died between the time of Christ's crucifixion and the Gospel story finally being brought to their region of the world?

One of the main attributes of God is that He must be enternal, exsiting outside of time/space in order to actually create it. Since God is not made up of material, but is rather a pure concousis then He has all information availible to Him at all instances. He did not later "decide" to send His son, but rather used his son retroactivly as he exsits fully in all time, and it would make no difference when Christ was finally cruciefied.
As for the prophecys, (and the bible as a whole) are considered to be special revelation, as compared to general revelation (the watchmaker and other indirect means). Special revelation is important as it is a direct means of contact to his plans and his decrees. Also, He can speak to individual man, to further His plan as necessary. (its ok to talk to him, but when you are talked to is that good?)And of course, it makes for a good warning when the people stray. The bible also states that after the revelation to peter, that the word of god is complete and that there shall be nothing added on to it, even if some "heavenly" being demanded it to be so.
He is not reliant on anything, but anything He has created is reliant on him for exsitance. That is why it is that we must obey what he commands, for He has given us his law and it is just. It is just on the gounds that he is the arbitrator of the creation.
The penalty of sin is death, sooner or later. And everyone sins. The prophecys predicted the messiah to die sinless, to die to take the sin of his elect instead with him. Who are the elect? No one knows, save through special revelation. It is not worthy to try and locate them as it is only for God to have predestinated them through grace.
Further, it is possible for people outside of christiananity to be saved though this grace. The prohept Isiah declares the Gentiles (non-jews) to be able to partake in the company of the elect. After all, Cyrus (persian commander) liberated israel and he is considered by Isaih to be one of the elect. Nothing we do can save ourselves through His eyes, but He may make you one of His elect, and if you are so then nothing can change that, given that christ died for his elect.

I hope that cleared up some confusion. I certainly respect that some of you are atheist, angonisc, deistic or otherwise, but I hope this answers Cindys question well enough.

Palomar · 2003-08-18 09:30:17

Cindy, I can understand your confusion. I hope this will clear it up a bit!
*What I don't understand is, if all this theology is true, why God/Jehovah had people sacrificing doves and lambs for centuries and centuries, in order to "atone for their sins"...and later decides he needs his son do accomplish this. I'm not being snide or flippant; it's just that the whole scenario doesn't make sense to me. And besides, even if all this were true, it took hundreds of years for the Christian story to reach the ends of the globes. What about all the people who lived and died between the time of Christ's crucifixion and the Gospel story finally being brought to their region of the world?
One of the main attributes of God is that He must be enternal, exsiting outside of time/space in order to actually create it. Since God is not made up of material, but is rather a pure concousis then He has all information availible to Him at all instances. He did not later "decide" to send His son, but rather used his son retroactivly as he exsits fully in all time, and it would make no difference when Christ was finally cruciefied.
As for the prophecys, (and the bible as a whole) are considered to be special revelation, as compared to general revelation (the watchmaker and other indirect means). Special revelation is important as it is a direct means of contact to his plans and his decrees. Also, He can speak to individual man, to further His plan as necessary. (its ok to talk to him, but when you are talked to is that good?)And of course, it makes for a good warning when the people stray. The bible also states that after the revelation to peter, that the word of god is complete and that there shall be nothing added on to it, even if some "heavenly" being demanded it to be so.
He is not reliant on anything, but anything He has created is reliant on him for exsitance. That is why it is that we must obey what he commands, for He has given us his law and it is just. It is just on the gounds that he is the arbitrator of the creation.
The penalty of sin is death, sooner or later. And everyone sins. The prophecys predicted the messiah to die sinless, to die to take the sin of his elect instead with him. Who are the elect? No one knows, save through special revelation. It is not worthy to try and locate them as it is only for God to have predestinated them through grace.
Further, it is possible for people outside of christiananity to be saved though this grace. The prohept Isiah declares the Gentiles (non-jews) to be able to partake in the company of the elect. After all, Cyrus (persian commander) liberated israel and he is considered by Isaih to be one of the elect. Nothing we do can save ourselves through His eyes, but He may make you one of His elect, and if you are so then nothing can change that, given that christ died for his elect.
I hope that cleared up some confusion. I certainly respect that some of you are atheist, angonisc, deistic or otherwise, but I hope this answers Cindys question well enough.

*Hi Prometheusunbound. Thank you for your time and energy in responding to my post.

I don't believe I am confused; rather, I am familiar (from previously in my life) with the viewpoint/outlook you describe in your post. I also spent 4 or 5 years (in the mid- and late 1990s) studying comparative religion.

It boils down to "I don't buy it." 2 + 2 doesn't = 4, in my mind, with respect to religion.

But to each their own, of course.

Ironically, one of my most favorite composers (Johann Sebastian Bach) wrote most, if not all, of his music for the church (Lutheran) and as an expression of his religious devotion. I have to admit his music is some of the most sublime, elevating, splendid music I've ever heard; I almost like him more than Mozart, but when I hear Mozart I think "It's a tie" and it'd be impossible to choose between them.

Thanks again for sharing your theological concepts.

--Cindy

Ranger_2833 · 2003-08-22 10:39:23

Has anyone seen the director's cut of Amadeus (released last fall I think)? There were a couple of scenes added to the movie that made a couple of points a little more interesting, but the original movie was a picture of perfection in its own right. If you have never seen it, unless you are one of those shallow morons of the heard who are unable to enjoy real art, I highly reccomend that you see this film. More so if you are a Mozart fanatic (the entire soundtrack is his music, unaltered) or just classical music fan in general. Of all of the movies I have ever seen, this is by far the best.

It's too bad that Hollywood doesn't make films like this anymore. But alas, we are relegated to the shallow bread and circuses that they provide us.

The decadance in modern film, IMHO, is a very good indicator of the decadance of modern society.

Palomar · 2003-08-22 11:06:44

Has anyone seen the director's cut of Amadeus (released last fall I think)? There were a couple of scenes added to the movie that made a couple of points a little more interesting, but the original movie was a picture of perfection in its own right. If you have never seen it, unless you are one of those shallow morons of the heard who are unable to enjoy real art, I highly reccomend that you see this film. More so if you are a Mozart fanatic (the entire soundtrack is his music, unaltered) or just classical music fan in general. Of all of the movies I have ever seen, this is by far the best.
It's too bad that Hollywood doesn't make films like this anymore. But alas, we are relegated to the shallow bread and circuses that they provide us.
The decadance in modern film, IMHO, is a very good indicator of the decadance of modern society.

*I've not yet purchased the extended version (I intend to soon...major home repair and rennovation, extending my classical music CD collection, buying more books, travel expenses, etc., has taken precendent). The cinematography in the film is glorious, the acting superb; I watch "Amadeus" a few times a year. The clothing, carriages, wigs, decor (palatial and residential), etc., are stunning and beautiful. And the music -- of course it is fabulous! I own Mozart CDs.

But how *factual* is the actual story line itself? We may wish to withhold "bread and circuses" comments about other films (read on, if you dare!):

http://www.mozartproject.org/essays/brown.html

Modifier: I'm not an authority on the subject of Mozart by any means. I'm also a bit crushed for time currently, and probably cannot get into a long-winded discussion pertaining to him. However, I have an ongoing serial post relative to Mozart the child and teenager -- and the tours his parents (and later Leopold alone) took him on, throughout Europe, to showcase his genius and skills -- at my "Age of Voltaire" group (the link to it is in my signature line). I've also mentioned Wolfgang Mozart in the "18th Century: Age of Enlightenment" folder in Free Chat, here at the New Mars message boards.

Happy reading!

--Cindy

Ranger_2833 · 2003-08-22 11:41:39

Sorry, I meant "bread and circuses" as the mindless drivel produced to entertain the herd and keep their minds off how pathetic their lives really are. For examples turn on your TV (what time doesn't matter) and flip to almost any channel (this process will not work if you only get PBS stations ) and watch whatever is on. This is what I mean by "bread and circuses", by no means did I mean to imply that real art is part of that characterization.

I know that Amadeus is not entirely accurate, but that is not the point. It stands as an excellent example of what film (and acting) is supposed to be. Not Tomb Raider, Elima-Date, and the other (pardon my French) crap that the United States of Adolescents has fallen in love with.

Palomar · 2003-08-22 13:47:46

Sorry, I meant "bread and circuses" as the mindless drivel produced to entertain the herd and keep their minds off how pathetic their lives really are. For examples turn on your TV (what time doesn't matter) and flip to almost any channel (this process will not work if you only get PBS stations ) and watch whatever is on. This is what I mean by "bread and circuses", by no means did I mean to imply that real art is part of that characterization.
I know that Amadeus is not entirely accurate, but that is not the point. It stands as an excellent example of what film (and acting) is supposed to be. Not Tomb Raider, Elima-Date, and the other (pardon my French) crap that the United States of Adolescents has fallen in love with.

*I agree. I seldom watch television, except for news updates or some of the old classic sitcoms. The Discovery Channel has generally good programming (I especially enjoy forensics and cracking old murder cases), but it seems DC is now opting for "dumbing down" its program content with things like "Monster Garage" and the like. A & E's programming isn't as great as it used to be, and even "American Movie Classics" is starting up with dopey "real life" shows.

As for most of today's theater movies...I've seen far, FAR better made-for-TV movies. My husband and I go to the theater maybe 4 times a year.

--Cindy

prometheusunbound · 2003-08-22 14:27:41

the mindless drivel produced to entertain the herd and keep their minds off how pathetic their lives really are. For examples turn on your TV (what time doesn't matter) and flip to almost any channel (this process will not work if you only get PBS stations )

I like how you think.

I don't watch any of the music programs as I cannot appreciate much of any music at all, but I do appreciate the historical shows and pretty much anything NOVA comes up with is great. I'm too cheap to get cable, so I have never seen the discovery chanel. What I have seen of cable is not pleasurable to my mind, but it sure titalates my eyes (rubs eyes in rememberance of when I saw some cable in a hotel room. . . )

Does anyone know why the history aka "hitler" channel has no captions?

Josh Cryer · 2003-08-23 07:32:41

Has anyone seen Cannibal Holocaust?

Palomar · 2004-02-24 12:43:36

Look at "The Passion," for example. It's getting a lot of flack for doing things others would prefer be done differently. That sort of thing is inevetable.
Speaking of The Passion, what do you guys think of the whole debacle?

*Well...Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" comes to movie theaters this week (Wednesday), in the U.S.

I admit my views of certain related matters have changed/softened a bit since I last posted in this thread. Voltaire's Deistic writings -almost- persuade me.

But I'm still agnostic and not religious.

I doubt I will see the film, however. I really cannot handle seeing someone tortured and suffering like that.

Sorry, I don't mean to start a religious discussion (if it evolves into that, though, fine -- freedom of speech/expression and all), but I am curious if anyone here will see the film?

I'd like to know your impressions, reactions, etc.

A friend of mine mentioned he might watch it when it comes out on DVD.

--Cindy

clark · 2004-02-24 12:55:34

Weren't you a child of Chuluthu? That cult dosen't strike me as happy bunnies and sunshine.

I wonder if I would be damned if I watched a ripped version of the Gibson movie.

Paying to see the Gospel and I get a bucket of popcorn. This ain't your parents church anymore! :laugh:

Palomar · 2004-02-24 13:25:07

Weren't you a child of Chuluthu? That cult dosen't strike me as happy bunnies and sunshine.

*I've never belonged to a cult.

Say, Clark, haven't you been on New Mars since around 3:30 a.m. your time? Maybe you need nappy-time or something.

Take care.

--Cindy :laugh:

clark · 2004-02-24 13:32:19

My mistake, you must have been joking before when you mentioned it.

Perhaps I do need a nap, would you care to tuck me in or read me a bed time story? If not, I suppose I could read some of your posts on 18th century enlightenment... [yawn]... see, it's working already ! :laugh:

If you must know though, I like to get up and watch the sun rise on the Pacific Ocean... :laugh:

Palomar · 2004-02-24 13:38:51

Clark: "Perhaps I do need a nap, would you care to tuck me in or read me a bed time story?"

*Erm...I'm married. I'll have to turn down your requests.

Clark: "If not, I suppose I could read some of your posts on 18th century enlightenment... [yawn]... see, it's working already !"

*Lol. That's okay; I suppose there are more people bored with such studies/reading than those who enjoy it. To each their own.

Clark: "If you must know though, I like to get up and watch the sun rise on the Pacific Ocean..."

*Cool. I haven't seen the ocean in years. Get it while you can.

--Cindy

clark · 2004-02-24 13:44:21

"*Erm...I'm married. I'll have to turn down your requests. "

Erm...I'm seriously not interested. :laugh:

I'll let you know the next time I see the sun rise over the Pacific Ocean... :laugh:

Shaun might get back to you sooner on that than I though.

Palomar · 2004-02-24 14:01:06

I'll let you know the next time I see the sun rise over the Pacific Ocean... :laugh:

*And how am I supposed to know you're not on Catalina Island? Or perhaps take a boat far away from shore and watch sunrise that way?

Doesn't matter, though...and this is too far off topic already.

Toodles.

--Cindy

clark · 2004-02-24 14:08:56

The sun dosen't rise over the Pacific Ocean from Catalina, it rises over the coast, which is visible from the island. And I would have to be pretty far off-shore in a boat to make it look like the sun was rising over the ocean- a virtual impossibility given my 3:30AM visit to NewMars, no?

Ta ta.

DanielCook · 2004-02-24 17:56:55

Jumping back a couple of posts (ok ... more than a couple)

It's funny that the Germans should complain - the Goths (the proto-Germans) eventually went on to burn down Rome - and started the Dark Ages. From my knowledge, the depiction in "Gladiator" was not that far off either.

Germany, as we know it, is actually a fairly recent state - before the early 19th century (or there abouts - can't quite remember...) Germany was mostly divided into a lot of squabbling little kingdoms.

My greatest movie of all time? The first one that comes to mind is "The Usual Suspects".

clark · 2004-02-25 09:38:56

Good choice Daniel! One of Kevin Spacey's best work (much better than that K-Pax movie he did!).

Memento was a good non-scifi movie. Blue Velvet (note, it is a bit strange) is another. Seven (another Spacey movie... well Brad Pit and Morgan Freeman are in it too :laugh: )

I tend to like the movies where the endings are not so apparent (but they don't use cheap gimmiks to pull it off).

Cleopatra (Elizabeth Taylor) is a good movie, at least the portions with Rex Harrision (as Ceaser) in the first part. Mark Antony was just a loser in the last half.

DanielCook · 2004-02-25 10:27:08

Movies that catch the watcher off guard are almost always successful - just think of "The Sixth Sense" (Pity the rest M Night Shyamalan's movies weren't as good)

It seems Kevin Spacey is either an uber-bad guy or a sickly sweet good buy. Ever see "Pay it forward" ? <shudder>

dicktice · 2004-02-25 10:29:31

The Seven Samurai: Simply the best of the antique warrier genre!

Palomar · 2004-02-25 10:34:01

The Seven Samurai: Simply the best of the antique warrier genre!

*Hi dicktice:

Wasn't "The Magnificent Seven" (Yul Brenner, Steve McQueen) a westernized version of "The Seven Samurai"?

The Magnificent Seven was a great film, unbeatable character portrayals, terrific backdrops and costumes, etc.

--Cindy

::EDIT:: Speaking of western/cowboy movies (I'm not a great fan), Clint Eastwood films were the best. The way he chomped that cigarillo between his teeth and talked around it, etc. "You insulted my horse. My horse doesn't like being insulted." :laugh:

Anyway, Eastwood looked like a cowboy/drifter. Great nitty-gritty films.

clark · 2004-02-25 10:55:13

Rashaman is another great flick if you want to try some black and white foriegn fair. If you liked Seven Samauri, it's the same director.

Seventh Seal is fantastic too (warning, more B&W subtitles), deals with the different sides of approaching death, life, and living.

Bill White · 2004-02-25 11:44:43

Bill and Ted's. . .?

Nah, never mind. Too intellectual, Dude. :;):

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-08-17 07:23:17

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#27 2003-08-17 07:44:38

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#28 2003-08-17 11:30:59

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#29 2003-08-18 09:30:17

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#30 2003-08-22 10:39:23

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#31 2003-08-22 11:06:44

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#32 2003-08-22 11:41:39

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#33 2003-08-22 13:47:46

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#34 2003-08-22 14:27:41

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#35 2003-08-23 07:32:41

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#36 2004-02-24 12:43:36

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#37 2004-02-24 12:55:34

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#38 2004-02-24 13:25:07

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#39 2004-02-24 13:32:19

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#40 2004-02-24 13:38:51

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#41 2004-02-24 13:44:21

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#42 2004-02-24 14:01:06

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#43 2004-02-24 14:08:56

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#44 2004-02-24 17:56:55

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#45 2004-02-25 09:38:56

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#46 2004-02-25 10:27:08

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#47 2004-02-25 10:29:31

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#48 2004-02-25 10:34:01

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#49 2004-02-25 10:55:13

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

#50 2004-02-25 11:44:43

Re: Flicks - ...other than sci-fi

Board footer