#296918 - 20/04/2007 13:49
Re: Don Imus
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
The opposite of blasphemous would be holy. It's unlikely anyone involved in that project has any concept of holy and if they did, that film wouldn't be an example of it. That film wasn't done to promote any theological view that the creators hold. It was done to question an theology they oppose.
Have you seen the movie? I'm going to assume not, so I'll summarize very quickly.
Spoiler:
Wrfhf yvirf uvf yvsr onfvpnyyl nf fubja ol gur Ovoyr hc gb n pregnva cbvag. Ng gung cbvag (fbeel, V qba'g erzrzore rkcyvpvgyl jurer vg vf, nf vg'f orra n juvyr fvapr V'ir frra vg, ohg fbzrjurer nebhaq gur qnlf fheebhaqvat uvf pehpvsvkvba), vg gnxrf n ghea. Wrfhf raqf hc abg trggvat pehpvsvrq. Ur zneevrf Znel Zntqnyrar, naq onfvpnyyl unf n unccl, abezny yvsr nf n abezny zna. Vg vf ernyyl na vqlyyvp yvsr. Gura vg vf erirnyrq gung gur cybg bs gur zbivr nsgre gur oernx sebz gur Ovoyr jnf Fngna fubjvat Wrfhf jung uvf yvsr jbhyq or vs ur erabhaprq uvf pynvzf. Gur zbivr raqf jvgu Wrfhf znxvat n pyrne pubvpr gung ur jbhyq engure qvr ba gur pebff va ntbal, fpnerq sbe uvf orvat, va ubcrf gung ur pna fnir znaxvaq, guna fhozvg gb gur rkprrqvatyl fgebat grzcgngvba gb yvir bhg uvf yvsr unccvyl. Juvyr gur fcrpvsvp grzcgngvba qbrfa'g nccrne va gur Ovoyr, pregnvayl Wrfhf jnf fubja gb unir orra grzcgrq, jnf fubja gb unir orra fpnerq, naq jnf fubja gb unir orra va qbhog, nyy sebz gvzr gb gvzr. Gb zr, guvf zbivr znxrf gur nethzrag gung Wrfhf fnpevsvprq uvzfrys va gur snpr bs gur fgebatrfg cbffvoyr grzcgngvba. V pnaabg frr ubj gung pbhyq or pbafvqrerq nalguvat bgure guna ubyl.
Please explain to me how that story is blasphemous, or even questions Christian theology. To me, it seems to affirm it in much more accessible ways than has been done before or since.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296919 - 20/04/2007 13:53
Re: Don Imus
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5914
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
That matches my recollection of the film, I saw it when I was still a practising Christian and I remember thinking "how does anyone think this is blasphemous".
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296920 - 20/04/2007 14:15
Re: Don Imus
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
The WTC conspiracy comments made by her were irresponsible and baseless. I feel they do more damage to this country than Imus did.
That is certainly a legitimate argument to make.
Quote:
I also don't consider it a political view. It's a matter of fact not ideology.
She is not accusing a specific set of people, nor is she accusing an entire class of people. It may be a whackjob theory, but it's left to the viewer to investigate its truth, and there is truth to investigate. There is nothing to investigate in regards to "nappy-headed hos". (Well, I suppose you could determine if the women in question had tightly curled hair and were prostitutes, but that's just absurd.) It was a personal attack on specific people. And for no reason.
Quote:
I also like that it was the sponsors that made the push and not the government, although they are investigating him.
I'm not sure I understand your point. The government might fine him for violating decency standards on public airwaves, but they certainly would have no hand in having him fired. In reality, they would probably fine the individual radio stations that broadcast it, as they're the ones responsible for the use of the airwaves they've been loaned. But I can't imagine a situation where the government would push for a private corporation to fire a private citizen, barring some SEC matters.
Quote:
I didn't like how this was going to be some victory for Al Sharpton and Jesse. Both live in glass houses and I feel both have done more damage to blacks in their careers than Imus ever did by telling blacks that they are always victims.
I believe that both Sharpton and Jackson have done both good and bad. Sometimes they do promote an image of victimhood, but, then, other times, they promote an image of self-hate. In reality, they are both political creatures whose interests are probably based in helping, but for whom those interests have long since taken a back seat.
Quote:
If you're on the radio, you can't say nigger, even in context. No license holder that has invited you onto their airwaves will let you out of fear of the FCC. Even in context. But I admit, even when I use it in context, I feel weird saying it and I respect the fact that some blacks don't like me saying it. I don't like it, but I get it.
I agree with you here. (And the FCC shouldn't be judges of intent, they should have specific rules. Of course, they seem to be hypocritical enough to do whichever suits them at the moment.) My point is, the longer people remain scared of a word, on either side, the longer that word retains its power. Words have no more meaning than those we place upon them.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296921 - 20/04/2007 16:11
Re: Don Imus
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
Quote:
..She is not accusing a specific set of people, nor is she accusing an entire class of people. .. It was a personal attack on specific people. And for no reason.
True and true. I was just saying that Rosie's comment hopefully isn't considered political.
Quote:
But I can't imagine a situation where the government would push for a private corporation to fire a private citizen, barring some SEC matters.
Again, we're not in disagreement here, I just wasn't clear. The advertisors did not demand he be fired, nor is the FCC. But their actions, cancelling advertising or issuing huge fines, could push a broadcaster to take certain action. I was just relieved that the firing seemed to be because NBC didn't like having a show w. no advertisers and a show that previously had only been known by 0.0001% of the population but now is known by 99% of the population but now as a liability. Basically, public outrage partially and sponsor revolt primarily caused NBC to fire him even though only some of the public was calling for it. The public calls for firing people all the time (Bill Benette, Dan Rather) but usually the people making the calls aren't likely to have been watching the show anyway. So, that leads me back to the sponsors being the major factor here.
Quote:
I believe that both Sharpton and Jackson have done both good and bad. Sometimes they do promote an image of victimhood, but, then, other times, they promote an image of self-hate. In reality, they are both political creatures whose interests are probably based in helping, but for whom those interests have long since taken a back seat.
Guessing people's intentions is too hard to do in my opinion. I just judge their actions and I feel that they have done far more harm than good. I feel they stand for the opposite of what MLK stood for. That's just my opinion. But I don't doubt for a minute that they feel they are doing good. I can say that about most people I disagree with politically for what that's worth.
////
Regarding the Last Temptation of Christ, whether or not you or I think it is blasphemous doesn't negate the fact that people found it so. In fact, you brought up the film AND brought up the fact that it is considered blasphemous by some, not me.  I only questioned the fact that the creators did the film out of a sense of creating something holy or depicting something to be holy.
However... I retract my suspicions of the creators' intent.. See, I told you guessing intentions is too hard! According to wikipedia, it appears that Nikos Kazantzakis' novel was written with the intent of showing that Christ sacrificed during his entire life, not just at the end with his life. Pretty cool concept actually, and it makes sense.
Yet, also, thanks to wikipedia , the blasphemy charge is supported. Blasphemy is the demanation of something holy or sacred. Defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual... The Last Temptation's scene [yelow]depicting Christ imagining himself engaged in sexual activities, a notion that has caused outrage from some Christians and it's clear why. It doesn't jive with what they consider true. And since Christ is holy to Christians, that defamation is upgraded to blasphemy. To further explain, according to Matthew 5:27-32 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.' {28} "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Many people interpret this to mean that thinking of adultery, as in the book/film, Christ has defacto commited adultery. Hence, to suggest such a thing is blasphemy. So, Bitt's example is a good one. The film is blasphemous or righteous depending on who looks at it. Personally, I favor Dennis Prager's take on this. He is a Jew and not a Christian, but it seems he sometimes does a better job of actually reading the text rather than rely on Church tradition.. He argues that the text clearly states "adultrey of the heart" and not "adultery of the flesh" and to suggest that God would consider both to be the same defies common sense. Because at that point, if I've already lusted over a woman, I might as well go ahead and do it because I've already commited the act in God's eye. Therefore, inpure thoughts may be unholy thoughts, but they are quite different than impure actions. Impure thoughts are merely unholy and impure actions may be sinful (although not necessarily). /// Fun conversation!
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296922 - 20/04/2007 17:53
Re: Don Imus
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Okay, now we're off on a distant tangent, but I'm curious.
The mere fact of thinking about having sex (perhaps with someone in particular) is enough for adultery to have been committed? But the common modern understanding of adultery has to do with having sex with a person who is married. If neither is married, is it considered adultery? Assuming that neither Mary Magdalene nor Jesus was married, is it still adultery? Or does the prohibition extend to any sex outside marriage?
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296923 - 20/04/2007 19:16
Re: Don Imus
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
As I understand it, adultery is where at least one person is married (but obviously not to the person he or she is having sex with.) But it is still sinful or at least unholy and would still be considered contradictory to Christian faith. Yet, some Christians, mistakenly in my opinion, take that Biblical quote about adultery and extend it to anything sinful. So, if I were to give serious thought to stealing from a store, they would consider me to have commited theivery of the heart...
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296924 - 20/04/2007 19:23
Re: Don Imus
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Okay, so neither Jesus nor Mary Magdalene was married, so it was not adultery, so what's the problem? The notion that Jesus might have human foibles? Isn't that the whole point, that he was both human and divine? If you remove the humanity from him, what's the sacrifice?
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296925 - 20/04/2007 19:56
Re: Don Imus
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31565
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
Okay, so neither Jesus nor Mary Magdalene was married, so it was not adultery, so what's the problem?
I haven't seen the film, but from what was said in the thread, it wasn't even him imagining this stuff, it was the devil putting that stuff in his head to tempt him. So I also don't see how there could be a problem, even if thinking about sex with Mary Magdalene could be defined as adultery.
Well, actually, I do see the problem: The people complaining about it have really unhealthy hangups about sex, excessively strict views of morality, and a complete ignorance (or active denial) of human nature. Not to mention the irrational belief that Jesus was somehow exempt from his own humanity. All of this, of course, handed down by the doctrine of the particular church they follow, which is really the root of the problem.
But, forgetting all that for a moment, in the context of the film, I don't see how the Devil putting ideas in Jesus' head could mean that anyone but the Devil was at fault.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296926 - 20/04/2007 19:59
Re: Don Imus
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I believe that the occurrence he's talking about was actually prior to the external temptation. But it's been years since I've watched it. I have it on DVD at home. I might watch it again. It's a really good movie with a great soundtrack, IMO.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296927 - 20/04/2007 20:00
Re: Don Imus
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31565
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#296928 - 20/04/2007 20:07
Re: Don Imus
[Re: wfaulk]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 06/04/2005
Posts: 2026
Loc: Seattle transplant
|
Quote:
Okay, now we're off on a distant tangent, but I'm curious.
The mere fact of thinking about having sex (perhaps with someone in particular) is enough for adultery to have been committed? But the common modern understanding of adultery has to do with having sex with a person who is married. If neither is married, is it considered adultery? Assuming that neither Mary Magdalene nor Jesus was married, is it still adultery? Or does the prohibition extend to any sex outside marriage?
A little more off topic-
Are you going to Hell?
/ sorry for the distraction
// I scored a 95
_________________________
10101311 (20GB- backup empeg)
10101466 (2x60GB, Eutronix/GreenLights Blue) (Stolen!)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296929 - 20/04/2007 23:50
Re: Don Imus
[Re: wfaulk]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 25/08/2000
Posts: 2413
Loc: NH USA
|
Yeah, I sinned quite a bit to that soundtrack my freshman year at college. Perfect CD to put on repeat.
-Zeke
_________________________
WWFSMD?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296930 - 23/04/2007 19:09
Re: Don Imus
[Re: Robotic]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
A little more off topic-
Are you going to Hell?
Note... standard purity test, so some sections NSFW.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296931 - 23/04/2007 19:18
Re: Don Imus
[Re: canuckInOR]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
Quote:
Quote:
A little more off topic-
Are you going to Hell?
Note... standard purity test, so some sections NSFW.
Yikes. I scored 163 on that, with the range 161-200 being "You're a danger to society. Who let you out on a day pass?"
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296932 - 23/04/2007 19:39
Re: Don Imus
[Re: webroach]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
You must have licked an eyeball.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296933 - 23/04/2007 19:44
Re: Don Imus
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I licked an eyeball, and I only got 90-some.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296934 - 23/04/2007 21:17
Re: Don Imus
[Re: wfaulk]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 15/01/2002
Posts: 1866
Loc: Austin
|
How does casual eyeball licking come into play?
"I've got this nacho stuck in my eye, will you get it for me?"
??
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296936 - 23/04/2007 22:05
Re: Don Imus
[Re: webroach]
|
addict
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 510
Loc: NY
|
220. No eyeball licking required.
_________________________
Heather
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." -Susan B Anthony
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296938 - 24/04/2007 00:54
Re: Don Imus
[Re: webroach]
|
addict
Registered: 02/08/2004
Posts: 434
Loc: Helsinki, Finland
|
Quote:
Quote:
220. No eyeball licking required.
Marry me. 
But then her score would go down! 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296939 - 24/04/2007 02:08
Re: Don Imus
[Re: petteri]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296940 - 24/04/2007 03:25
Re: Don Imus
[Re: wfaulk]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 20/01/2002
Posts: 2085
Loc: New Orleans, LA
|
For the record, adultery is when at least one of the sexual partners is married to someone else. Sex between 2 unmarried consenting adults is fornication. Both are considered sin.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296942 - 24/04/2007 12:52
Re: Don Imus
[Re: lectric]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Is it a sin to think about fornication? (And, honestly, when the KJV -- the only version I find that uses the term "fornication" -- uses the term, it seems to refer to prostitution.)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296943 - 24/04/2007 12:54
Re: Don Imus
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5914
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
From what I can tell the "non sex before marriage" rule has just about no basis in the Bible's text anyway.
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296944 - 24/04/2007 13:38
Re: Don Imus
[Re: wfaulk]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 15/01/2002
Posts: 1866
Loc: Austin
|
Quote:
Is it a sin to think about fornication? (And, honestly, when the KJV -- the only version I find that uses the term "fornication" -- uses the term, it seems to refer to prostitution.)
Yeah, I'm pretty sure Catholics just make shit up.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296945 - 24/04/2007 14:45
Re: Don Imus
[Re: RobotCaleb]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I don't think it's restricted to any particular denomination. Or religion, for that matter.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296946 - 24/04/2007 14:54
Re: Don Imus
[Re: RobotCaleb]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31565
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
Yeah, I'm pretty sure Catholics just make shit up.
And occasionally, they even admit it. Sometimes takes a few hundred years before they get around to admitting it, though.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296947 - 24/04/2007 15:16
Re: Don Imus
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5914
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
On a related subject, I've just started hosting a blog for a Christian friend of mine. It is good to find a Christian who actually thinks about his faith, even if I still think he is wrong
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index