ROTTEN TOMATOES: Shorter, Less Violent "Passion" Comments

Shorter, Less Violent "Passion"

by RT Staff | February 10, 2005

Summary

A shorter, less violent cut of "The Passion of the Christ" will be released on March 11th in most major markets, according to Variety. Titled "The Passion Recut," the new version will have 5 to 6 mins of its most violent scenes removed. Mel Gibson hopes to capture the audience segment who skipped the original movie due to its depiction of violence with this new cut. Back to Article

(1-58 of 58 posts) | Reply

Elessar Oronro writes:
on Feb 10 2005 11:59 PM

What's this? An admission from Gibson himself that this film was over-the-top and extremely violent? Buddha be praised! This fim is sick, disturbing, and misses the point. It was relief for me to see very few Oscar nominations for this glorified snuff film. Here's hoping it fades away to obscurity...but, knowing the Christian wackos, it won't.

(Reply to this)

MadameBovary writes:
on Feb 11 2005 02:56 AM

[b]or maybe[/b]
This is just an excuse to re-release the movie.

(Reply to this)

The Iron Invader writes:
on Feb 11 2005 07:22 AM

Oh no. An unrated version that actually misses certain scenes? Awkward.....

Anyway, the film blew.

(Reply to this)

jeanpaul writes:
on Feb 11 2005 07:36 AM

In reply to this comment (#819661)
[b]christian wackos?[/b]
Christian wackos? From a guy called Elessar? It's better to be a Christian wacko, than a Lord of the Rings one.

(Reply to this)

ninjaandy writes:
on Feb 11 2005 07:56 AM

Ok, Elessar. We get it. You have free speech. That doesn't mean you have to use it to offend people.

Unless you actually like being closed-minded. And what's with this "missed the point" stuff? How much of YOUR life has been spent studying Jesus?

Regarding the Passion, I think this is a good idea, regardless of your opinion of the film as an art piece. The violence didn't bug me, but I can see how it would turn a lot of people off.

(Reply to this)

245_trioxin writes:
on Feb 11 2005 08:16 AM

[b]was this really necesarry?[/b]
this may not be the best place to start a first impression, but i felt inclined to post to this particular thread.

if this was truley the passion uncut, then all the violence would be cut out not just 5 or 6 minutes. i admit as an avid horror movie fan, that this film achieved making me nausious from the violence portrayed in mel gibson's interpretation. but then i thought this must have been how it happened. if gibson really wants to educate people on this and not make a profit for himself, then he should be showing this for free. i.m.h.o.

being a christian by birth, but not out to change the world to my beliefs, i am glad that gibson made the changes to his film so that the squeamish can finally see his work about jesus, but am sadddened to think that if he was really this passionate about this story he would not be going out for the big bucks.

(Reply to this)

scarh791 writes:
on Feb 11 2005 09:29 AM

In reply to this comment (#819661)
But the splatter is what made the original so damn FUNNY!

(Reply to this)

JimD73 writes:
on Feb 11 2005 01:06 PM

[b]You Can't Cash In On Jesus[/b]
C'mon, The Passion without gore? Now, I am not some right-wing Christian, in fact I'm closer to aetheism than Cathlocism, but I saw The Passion and appreciated for what it was. It wasn't an uplifting movie, it was a gritty look at a popular belief. Whether or not it was my belief had no effect on my viewing. However, for using it as a documentary in Christian and Catholic schools, a toned down version would be a good idea.

Just don't cash-in and market it widely. I never thought I'd say this, but you can't cash in on Jesus.

(Reply to this)

Brianpro writes:
on Feb 11 2005 01:35 PM

In reply to this comment (#819664)
[b]I think not[/b]
At Lord of Rings wackos admit its fantasy. Christians acutally believe there is truth to all that nonsense.

(Reply to this)

polnikes writes:
on Feb 11 2005 01:37 PM

[b]why mel??[/b]
the Passion was an OK movie that seemed to reliey upon the shock of the violence in order to get its message across. now without the violence it seems that Mel's just trying to cash in by attracting the younger audience that couldnt get in before who arw wondering what its all about. convienient how its so close to easter too, agaion trying to attract the religous crowd who feel the need to be "inspired" by christ's struggle

(Reply to this)

kenporules writes:
on Feb 11 2005 01:54 PM

What's next, editing Hayden Christiensen's face over Judas?

I enjoyed The Passion (and I'm an agnostic) but this is just a pathetic cash-in for the same people that buy full frame DVDs and The Lion King 2.

"There is also talk to bring the movie back to theaters every Easter."

Even Jesus would probably find that ridiculous. This may be the most authentic Jesus movie out there, but it sure as hell isn't one I'd want to watch every year on a religious holiday even if I was a Christian. If they're going to do that, then they might as well make some sappy preachy feel good crap and release that every year instead.

(Reply to this)

ninjaandy writes:
on Feb 11 2005 04:11 PM

I don't think the Passion in theaters every Easter is gonna fly. That's what DVDs are for. I get the feeling that was part of a press release testing the waters more than a serious suggestion. And yeah, I'm sure none of you would want to make ANY money on months worth of work, paid for out of your own pockets. To quote kenporules, "even Jesus would probably find that rediculous."

The bottom line is, if you disliked/hated the Passion this won't make any difference in your lives. If you liked it, either as a movie or a religous piece, it's good news.

As far as Lord of the Rings goes, you all do know Tolkien was a serious Catholic, don't you? Look it up. So as allegory, LOTR is, you know, Christian. Sorry to burst your little AD&D agnostic fantasy bubbles, but that's the way it is.

(Reply to this)

the_shadow writes:
on Feb 11 2005 05:21 PM

In reply to this comment (#819672)
Prof. Tolkien clearly stated in his foreword that it was neither an allegory for his personal beliefs nor for the world war. once again the bubble defies the odds and stays intact! :D

(Reply to this)

Hanniballistic writes:
on Feb 11 2005 08:00 PM

[b]Who cares?[/b]
Powerful movie when I saw it, crap when I rewatched it.

It's a one-timer for me.

"We get it. You have free speech..."
-ninjaandy

Damn right he does.

(Reply to this)

Writer_x writes:
on Feb 11 2005 08:13 PM

The reason that he would want to re-release the film during Easter is so people would remember exactly what it was that Jesus did. If some individuals want to complain or even mock the gore, then I would say they are clearly missing the intent (and that is not good at all). The purpose of the movie is to make an impression in our minds as to exactly what really did happen. Often times people get the idea that Jesus is a story and nothing more. They would be wrong. The crucifixion really did happen and it wasn't a pretty bed-time story you tell your kids right after finishing up a Dr. Sues book.

The pessimism on this thread is almost unbearable. If Gibson cuts out the worst of the gore, it isn't so he can make more money. I'm sure he has plenty already. It would be to draw in those that are more squeamish��not to pick their pockets��but to reach out to them in a way that doesn't make them want to vomit.

Ellesar: I'm sure you've got your pie in the sky idea of what the Passion is "really" supposed to mean. But whatever it is I suggest you just ignore it. Too bad...I suppose you'll go on staring at the shadows on the wall and call it real.

(Reply to this)

Jarofclay74 writes:
on Feb 12 2005 07:12 AM

[b]More money?[/b]
Mel Gibson never did The Passion for money. He did as a personnal project and never anticipated a success at the box-office. It was a project of faith, a project of evangelization. As a Catholic, I think it's a great idea for Mel Gibson to release the film every year for Lent, if only to help Christians meditate on the central mystery of their faith.

One other thing : Mel Gibson did not promote financially his film for Oscar nominations. If it was "glory" or "money" he was after, he could easily have done that. Nor did he release any "Director's Cut DVD" or "Special Edition DVD" full of extras. The DVD is as plain as it gets.

(Reply to this)

Hanniballistic writes:
on Feb 12 2005 08:27 AM

In reply to this comment (#819675)
I wouldn't go as far as to say, "The purpose of the movie is to make an impression in our minds as to exactly what really did happen."

No one truly knows EXACTLY how it happened.

(Reply to this)

Elessar Oronro writes:
on Feb 12 2005 09:04 AM

Wow. Never thought I'd strike up such furvor over a little Christian put down. Settle, relax...go back to glueing Jesus fish to your cars and beating up homosexuals or whatever the hell it is you people do.

As for my name being from LOTR, it's called a login name. It's not real. I'm NOT a big LOTR nut. I liked the films, but so did most people. I just thought the name sounded interesting.

The point of this whole post is to point out the irony of Mr. Gibson cutting the violence from his film when he defended it so "passionately" last spring. I, for one, refuse to give Gibson much credit anymore. Not since I saw an interview with him where he admitted thinking that his wife (his wife!) was going to hell because she didn't believe what he believed. Does this make any kind of logical sense? What kind of person is he? This just shoes the hypocrasy of most organized religions. Are we really supposed to believe (Catholics, I'm talking to YOU) that you will go to eternal hell if you eat meat on Fridays? What kind of "loving, merciful God" would do that? Wake up and join the rest of us in the 21st century, please!

(Reply to this)

ninjaandy writes:
on Feb 12 2005 10:52 AM

Elessar, where can I see that interview? Cuz that would be crazy, if he said it like you say he did. Somehow I get the feeling you missed something, though.

No, you don't go to hell for eating meat on Fridays. You go to hell for telling God to stick it. But it's so much more complicated than this thread would allow. If you really care, go to catholic.com and look around.

Hanniballistic . . . yeah. Free Speech . . . damn right . . . way to add to the discussion there.

Shadow, I'd agree, except Tolkien himself wrote:

"The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision." (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, ed. Humphrey Carpenter, London: Allen & Unwin, 1981, p. 172)

If you really want to know about Tolkien, read it. You will be enlightened. Also, Joseph Pearce's Tolkien: Man and Myth. Great stuff.

Totally off topic, though. So what have we established: I'm a crazy Catholic nutjob, Elessar is an expert on Christian beliefs despite his not actually knowing them, and Mel Gibson may or may not like earning money.

Oh, and free speech exists. Thanks, hannibal.

Man, I am such a jerk.

(Reply to this)

Elessar Oronro writes:
on Feb 12 2005 12:36 PM

In reply to this comment (#819679)
I saw that interview on Primetime Live with Diane Sawyer. It was probably the biggest interview before the Passion's release. Diane was pressing Mel on the tenants of his belief system and he came up with the logical gem that his beloved wife was going to hell, according to his church. I'm suprised he's still married after that one.

No, I don't care to learn more. Thanks for the offer though. But it would help if anyone could explain to me the purpose of not eating meat on Fridays.

I'm certainly not an expert on Christian beliefs...I gave up trying to understand them a long time ago. I was raised with strict attendance to a Southern Baptist church. Pretty amazing I left without believing any of it. Guess my Sunday School teacher got frustrated at me asking all sorts of logical, science based questions. And then there's the whole thing with me teaching middle school science and having to stifle laughter whenever a kid admits he believes the "theory" of creation.

(Reply to this)

ninjaandy writes:
on Feb 12 2005 01:20 PM

I'll look up the interview; thanks for the source.

There's a long explanation about meat on Fridays, but I'll give the short one:
it's not about the meat, it's about doing penance; chosen suffering of some sort, willingly taken upon yourself for the good of others. Catholics believe that evil in the world is the result of sin, but our free will choices help us atone for that sin. One of many ways to do that is voluntary suffering, offered to God, who then applies that good to others who are too downtrodden, ignorant, or evil to pray for or help themselves. It's not a superiority thing; Catholics are just as likely, or more so, to be weak, sinful, or evil. Therefore, deprivation of things we enjoy during lent is also a way to improve oneself and recognize one's own weakness.

Yes, of course God could just reach in and solve all our problems, but we'd keep making problems. Our free will exists so we can choose God and good; that choice is nullified if God solves all problems, thereby removing all moral choices.

What God the Father did do, though, is send Jesus to suffer along with us. In fact, to ensure Jesus' suffering was sufficient to apply to all, it was supernaturally expounded, and He still had to freely choose it (thus redeeming freely chosen evil with freely chosen good).

So Lent is the time we remember Christ's sacrifice, and attempt to add to it with our own. The meat deal is there mainly for symbolic and traditional reasons. It used to be a full on fast. As the Church gave in to pressure to make it easier, it turned into just a meat abstinence, and then a meat abstinence only on Fridays. The reason Catholics do the meat thing as a serious matter is because of obedience to church canon law (not doctrine; there's a difference). As I said above, that canon law has changed in the past and likely will again. So the sin, again, isn't eating meat, it's willful disobedience and lack of proper regard for penitential acts of love for your fellow man.

Feel free to make fun of us now. And yes, that was the short definition.

As for science, the church is the only religion I'm aware of that has an actual doctrinal position on how the truths of science and faith cannot contradict (as science, which studies God's creation, derives from the same source as faith, and has the same ultimate goal -- knowledge of God's goodness). Catholics aren't bound to believe in creationism, nor has the church taken any official position in the evolution debate. In fact, the Vatican seems to be officially leaning toward some form of evolution.

But let's not go patting Darwinistic evolution on the back -- it's about as proven in all it's tenets as creationism. Today's evolution has moved far from Darwin, and will probably continue to do so. As science's teachings are constantly in flux, you really can't say it's proven.

So I suppose you could say evolution is science's version of meat on Fridays -- you're supposed to sign up for now, but don't be surprised if it changes tomorrow.

(Reply to this)

cabezone writes:
on Feb 12 2005 01:21 PM

In reply to this comment (#819680)
Why do people continue to "debate" religion? It's not a debate. You either choose to beleive in things that are not acutally provable or testable, or you don't.

You change the minds of people who "believe". Religion is based in believing things that are not provable. It's called "faith". If someone believes that the mighty Thor guides their actions, whatever.

(Reply to this)

cabezone writes:
on Feb 12 2005 01:24 PM

In reply to this comment (#819681)
Have you actually read any books on evolution? It's one of the most well tested and proven theories in science. Comparing it to creationism is like comparing the belief in the Easter bunny to believing the sky is blue.

(Reply to this)

ninjaandy writes:
on Feb 12 2005 01:26 PM

People debate religion either because they think a particular religion (or all religions) are useless, stupid, or harmful and don't want people to believe them anymore, or because they believe their religion is right and beneficial, and want all humanity to benefit as well.

The methods different religious or anti-religious people use to go about achieving their various goals, and what those specific goals are, can be as unique as each individual person. Some annoy people on message boards like me and Elessar, others blow people up. Obviously not all methods of religious debate are good. But you got to admit, there sure as hell is a lot to debate about.

(Reply to this)

ninjaandy writes:
on Feb 12 2005 01:29 PM

The sky's not blue. That's an optical illusion. The easter bunny is a bastardized concept based on Nordic Freyan cult myths. Not what you'd call a major religion.

Yes, I've read several books on evolution. I think the difference between us is that I've read books from several sides of the debate, and tried to approach each with an open mind.

And I never said I didn't believe in evolution, or that I did believe in creationism.

(Reply to this)

ninjaandy writes:
on Feb 12 2005 01:30 PM

Actually, I guess whether the sky is blue depends on exactly how you define the concept of "sky". Which I'm totally not getting into.

(Reply to this)

cabezone writes:
on Feb 12 2005 01:36 PM

In reply to this comment (#819685)
I'm curious as to what debate you refer to? There is not debate on wether or not evolution happens, there is only debate as to how it happens. The problem is people mix up how life started, with how life evolves. Evolution does not deal with where life came from, it onl deals with how it changes.

Creationsm and evolution are interchangable, to a point. You can beleive God sparked life in a young earth all you wan, science has no way of testing this. It's the version of creationism that says the earth is 10,00 years old that is the problem.

(Reply to this)

ninjaandy writes:
on Feb 12 2005 01:58 PM

Well, my understanding of creationism, which may be wrong, is that it refers particularly to a "six days of creation" system. Anything else would, as you say, be some form of evolution/creationism composite. I don't ascribe to creationsim; I think there's too much to speak against a literal six days (and plenty of biblical exegesis to support the believe that genesis was never to be taken at that point as historically literal).

Some people, believe it or not, DO debate that evolution happens. Those people are not me. I think I have to apologize for a lack of clarity, actually. By evolution, I mean Darwinistic evolution taught as a proven system from hypothesis to test to fact, which it clearly isn't or they wouldn't call it the "theory" of evolution. Theories are by definition unproven.

My only criticism of the evolution "establishment" is when it's taught as opposed to religion, as if there are no religions that can believe in evolution. That shows ignorance of religion on the part of science. Lots of science-only intellectuals get all pissy when religions don't recognize the impact of science, but they turn around and crap on the contributions of religion to humanity. I mean, science never would've gotten started in the West if the Catholic Church hadn't promoted it in the middle ages. Obviously scientific study has given immeasurable benefit but, like religion, it's contributed its fair share of terrors.

I think the scientific community, and the religious community, could stand to be a little more respectful.

(Reply to this)

craygyrulez writes:
on Feb 12 2005 03:04 PM

i aint seen it so i dnt no y im ritin in ere

(Reply to this)

the_shadow writes:
on Feb 12 2005 03:57 PM

In reply to this comment (#819679)
thanks. thats quite a contradiction to what he wrote for the 2nd edition, but i suppose ppl have a habit of being fickle.

(Reply to this)

ninjaandy writes:
on Feb 12 2005 05:49 PM

In reply to this comment (#819690)
You're right about that, and I suppose it makes sense. He did say in that letter that it was "unconciously" religious at first. What he apparently meant by that was that his faith was so deeply ingrained in him it came out in his work, and only after much consideration did he realize how much it resembled Catholic teachings. He then promoted that understanding when asked.

I also think I shouldn't have used the word "allegory," which as a specific meaning. Sorry about that (a little imprecision causes a lot of problems . . .) He didn't necessarily mean LOTR was a direct symbolic representation of Christianity, or was meant to express Church doctrine. Honestly, his linguistic and Nordic studies were, you could argue, equally important elements along with his religion in the formation of the story.

I think my only point (if you could call it that) was that all the Christian bashers that liked LOTR were unwittingly being hypocritical, as Tolkien spent a good part of his efforts defending and promoting Catholicism, even incorporating it into his masterwork. I mean, come on -- lembas is communion, the ring is symbolic of carrying one's cross (and Sam does his "Christian" duty, bearing the "cross" despite his fears that he won't be able to do so), Galadriel is the Virgin Mary (even the terms used to describe her during the mirror episode are very close praises of Marian devotional prayers) . . . there's too much to deny, especially considering he lived as a faithful, loyal, and devoted Catholic his whole life.

After his death, his eldest son and a few others (Peter Beagle, for example, who wrote forwards for LOTR) set out on what amounts to a campaign to separate the work from the faith. And here we are.

(Reply to this)

scottybarkbark writes:
on Feb 12 2005 06:34 PM

In reply to this comment (#819680)
[b]elassar[/b]
are you sure your sunday school teacher got frustrated asking you "logical, science based" questions or got frustrated having to deal with a close minded lil twerp like yourself. as for creationism i believe in that whole heartedly, i support the belief that a loving intelligent creator created us rather than the theory of evolution which you evolutionists would rather us believe.

(Reply to this)

ChickenWing89 writes:
on Feb 12 2005 06:37 PM

"I'm curious as to what debate you refer to? There is not debate on wether or not evolution happens, there is only debate as to how it happens."

Is not the *big bang* part of the theory of evolution?

(Reply to this)

Ophiuchus writes:
on Feb 13 2005 03:17 AM

Hey, all you believers... if you're so confident that your beliefs are correct, you don't need to be so vicious toward unbelievers all the time. In fact that goes for unbelievers as well. If you want to convince them your ways are right, I suggest demonstating how kind, understanding and tolerant you are. Otherwise, you're wasting your time and hurting each other. Please just consider it, because I feel sad when I see people laying into each other like this. I used to do it to believers myself, and now I regret it very much.

(Reply to this)

cabezone writes:
on Feb 13 2005 03:37 AM

In reply to this comment (#819692)
How is choosing not to believe in fairy tales closed minded? The bible is simply one of the worlds oldest fantasy book, a very important and powerful book, but a fairy tale nonetheless.

(Reply to this)

cabezone writes:
on Feb 13 2005 03:38 AM

In reply to this comment (#819693)
No the big bang is a separate theory. Evolution simply deals with how lifeforms change and adapt over time.

(Reply to this)

Jerry Bruckheimer writes:
on Feb 13 2005 04:09 AM

[b]I've seen the new edit[/b]
Friends, I have seen this edited version, and in it, Jesus is only given a good spanking. And the opening scene where he looks like he's masturbating has been cut out because it cause too much confusion. The msot glaring change is that Jesus does not die in this version. Doc Brown flies to the rescue on his Delorean and takes Jesus to the future and "To Be Continued" is supered on the screen.

(Reply to this)

Hanniballistic writes:
on Feb 13 2005 08:11 AM

In reply to this comment (#819694)
Two thumbs up.

(Reply to this)

ninjaandy writes:
on Feb 13 2005 08:20 AM

In reply to this comment (#819695)
Cabezone, closed-mindedness can also refer to your approach to Christians (or all religious people), not just Christianity.

A fairy tale is a story told for purely symbolic purposes, or in a more modern sense, mostly for entertainment. The Bible is neither. The writers had specific points in mind when they wrote, and the Church Fathers who compiled the books and letters of the New Testament did so based on, in part, what would provide the most accurate picture of Christ, His teachings, and the teachings of His closest followers.

We can debate all day about what parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally, historically, typologically, or whatever, but it's inaccurate even from a non-believer's standpoint to define it as a "fairy tale." The writers had no intention to entertain; they didn't believe in most cases that their writings were "symbolic" in the way we mean that. Biblical scholars can learn these things the same way they do about other ancient histories: studying the culture, linguistics, society, and if possible, the writers themselves.

Besides which, occurences in the Bible are independently verified by outside sources, including other historians that had nothing to do with Christians, or outright hated them. I mean, there's more purely historical proofs for the Bible's accuracy in conveying history than we have for other works that no one questions.

This is a very vague defense, on purpose. Like with the other issues we've discussed, I don't think this particular thread has the patience for a full on Biblical debate. But let me ask you this: have you even read through the entire New Testament? You should, if for no other reason than to be educated about what it actually says and how it's actually written.

(Reply to this)

ninjaandy writes:
on Feb 13 2005 08:22 AM

Jesus in a Delorean . . . sounds like a ZZ Top video.

(Reply to this)

phuckgender writes:
on Feb 13 2005 11:04 AM

[b]Passion is just another chapter in ...[/b]
The History of Religion: Language shapes thought. "God" is created as a male figure by male writers in numerous religions. While following "God", penis-bearing humans rule the planet for thousands of years. As a result, children, women, and men suffer. The End

(Reply to this)

cabezone writes:
on Feb 13 2005 11:36 AM

In reply to this comment (#819699)
You at least know the world is flat right?

(Reply to this)

Elessar Oronro writes:
on Feb 13 2005 10:15 PM

In reply to this comment (#819692)
She got frustrated with my questions because I wanted PROOF...you know, that little thing with evidence attached to it? I cannot, and will not, accept anything on faith. I just can't. I demand that my students provide evidence to support their hypothesis, otherwise it's invalid and they fail. If only religion had to measure up to same stringent requirements. Think about this, scottybarkbark, if you think I'm so closed-minded: what if you took a child, raised him as normally as possible, in an average loving household, but denied him any exposure to organized religion. Then, when he turned 18, you gave him the Bible. Do you think he would believe one word of what he was reading? Of course not! It'd be like believing all those Weekly World News reports you see in the checkout line. People BELIEVE religion because they've had it slammed into their head from the moment they were born. Or they are "born again" as adults because they were weak, booze drinking morons. Logical, sensible adults don't believe in these fairy tales. Religion is holding the human race back from evolving. Think how many fewer wars and conflicts we would have if everyone just subscribed to scientific, logical thinking.

(Reply to this)

Ophiuchus writes:
on Feb 13 2005 10:35 PM

Calm down, Elessar. I'm not a believer either, but I promise you I've tried the tactics you're using and they don't work. They piss everyone off. So unless you're a glutton for punishment, calm down. Your insults prove nothing. They just confirm the belief a lot of christians have that athiests are rude and aggressive. You wouldn't want to get us a bad reputation, would you?

(Reply to this)

Ophiuchus writes:
on Feb 14 2005 01:45 AM

[b]A loving God (posted by Cherax, a housemate of Oph[/b]
It seems the Passion delivers a message of violence and spitting hatred.
Of cruelty, and bowel slashing viciousness. Rip the face of your enemy. Unleash every ounce of malice upon them. Watch them and their kind suffer unspeakable torment.

So what happened to the loving God? Not here, it seems. No, this is the territory of endless war and retribution. If you want an eternity of misery and suffering, the Passion is for you.

- Cherax

(Reply to this)

jeanpaul writes:
on Feb 14 2005 05:37 AM

In reply to this comment (#819678)
[b]This sensitive?[/b]
Wow, King! The first lines in your post PROVE exactly how close-minded, wrong-convention ridden, and LOUD are exactly those 'enlightened', quick to join the perfect and just 21'st century, people in TRUTH really ARE! Go on finger pointing, pal... Well, I'm gonna go glue a Jesus fish to my car now... Just so you feel comfy...

(Reply to this)

scottybarkbark writes:
on Feb 14 2005 07:50 AM

In reply to this comment (#819703)
TEELL ME ELESSAR WHERE IS THE PROOF EVOLUTION HAPPENED? HMMM? I HAVE ONLY SEEN THEORIES ON HOW EVOLUTION MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED? OH AND ITS FAIRLY SAD WHEN YOU CANNOT TAKE SOMETHING ON FAITH.

(Reply to this)

ninjaandy writes:
on Feb 14 2005 09:00 AM

The problem with your analogy, Elessar, is that you already assume that religious instruction is "abnormal", and what you believe is "normal." Take the same scenario and substitute organized religion for evolution, or universal string theory, or nuclear power . . . of course, if you isolate a child from the entire existence of something, they'll have trouble believing in it's tenets (or existence) when, at 18, they're exposed for the first time.

And it's a bogus idea anyway, because there are plenty of things LIKE religion (or any of the sceinces I mentioned) to bring a chlid halfway along the path, as it were.

So let's try your little experiment. You said:

"Logical, sensible adults don't believe in these fairy tales." According to your own academic standards, you now must offer evidence of your hypothesis. Just like your students, you are not allowed to be the judge of the truth for your own suppositions. Instead, you must first provide universal standards for judgement. Start with establishing a definition of "logical" and "sensible." I can tell you already that the technical definitions of those words won't help you at all.

Oh yeah, I'm a teacher too, high school. So unless you can find a college professor to trump me, I outrank you. ;>

So let's leave the "I'm a teacher" stuff behind, huh?

(Reply to this)

ninjaandy writes:
on Feb 14 2005 09:17 AM

Ophiucus, thank you for your voice of reason. You are right on all counts.

Cherax, watch the Passion again (or the first time). The film (and Christianity) isn't saying God does that to us, or that we should do it to each other. Rather, it is that a loving God took all that torment FOR us. Where is the logic in the idea that the loving do not suffer?

Jesus loves us. He suffered for that love, and still loves. Any good parents, siblings, friends, or lovers out there understand this. People aren't perfect, and those we love sometimes make us suffer. Total love of an imperfect being like man involves the acceptance of suffering.

That's why what happened to Christ was all about love. From the cross Jesus forgave those who tortured him and by extension, Christians believe, all of us who sin and add to his torment.

If you don't want to believe that, fine. But you are quite mistaken that the Passion is about spreading hatred. It's about love, forgiveness, and the humility with which all Christians must face God.

(Reply to this)

Elessar Oronro writes:
on Feb 14 2005 12:50 PM

In reply to this comment (#819708)
Wow, ninjaandy, I didn't realize that high school teachers were ranked higher than middle school teachers? Gosh. I just might go alert my school board to this new found nugget of wisdom.

I find it kind of scary that you would be teaching the youth of this country, sending them down a path where they're afraid of the dark, of supposed retribution from some unseen God, of going to hell because they don't kill the homo living down the street. I truly weep for the kids in your school.

Read "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan. In fact, assign it to all your kids to read. You just might open some minds, including yours.

(Reply to this)

ninjaandy writes:
on Feb 14 2005 04:29 PM

I guess you didn't see that little text face next to the "outranking" crack. And I guess you don't recognize sarcasm when you read it. Besides, your profile says you work at a Sheraton. Who do you teach, bellhops?

You make a hell of a lot of assumptions there, don't ya chief? I don't know any Christians afraid of the dark. I don't fear retribution from God. I certainly would never advocate killing anyone just for who they have sex with. I wouldn't even use the term "homo" to describe such a person. For someone who studies Buddhism, you sure are violent.

I've read Sagan. He's a smart, but sad man. Like you, he makes assumptions of what is true based on what he would like to be true. But where Sagan succeeds at more or less restraining his biases from causing him to spew self-righteous hatred, you clearly fail.

As for the youth of this country, they admit in poll after poll to being majority Christian (even if they wouldn't admit it to their friends for fear of being uncool); that doesn't include all the Jews, Muslims, Hindi, or just kids smart enough to understand there's something higher than them. Apparently all the efforts of you and yours to convince them otherwise are falling on deaf ears.

You've refused to answer my questions, accept my intellectual challenges, propose any of your own, or even follow your own intellectual advice. Instead, you've returned to where you started --shouting insults from a mind freightened of ideas different than its own. Well, you can shout them in the dark; I see no more reason to waste my time with you. I'd recommend a book, but I don't think you'd read it. Wouldn't want to expose our precious little worldviews to other possibilities, now would we?

But hey, I like your favorite movies. Except Titanic. Can't win 'em all.

(Reply to this)

jeanpaul writes:
on Feb 15 2005 05:10 AM

In reply to this comment (#819710)
[b]Man, you really have some issues...[/b]
Man (Ellesar), YOU really have some issues concerning homosexuality, don't you? That's the second time you've mentioned harming homosexuals down the street... Man, if you ARE a teacher (and your TONE says it all...), can't you atleast be ORIGNAL with your comments, instead of repetitive?

(Reply to this)

Mainevent writes:
on Feb 15 2005 01:51 PM

You (Ellesar) talk about Ninjaandy, and seemingly call him a bad teacher because he at least leaves leeway for personal beliefs, when you seem all too willing to quickly throw out anything you don't avidly support. And which one of you was the one endoctrinating your students again?

(Reply to this)

bastard_guy180 writes:
on Feb 16 2005 12:13 PM

[b]Cop out.[/b]
Why pay to see this version in the theatre when it'll be edited the exact same way if it ever comes to television.

Who in their right mind would pay to see an essentially television censored version of a movie?

(Reply to this)

Neithan writes:
on Feb 16 2005 02:32 PM

[b]science, reason, and faith[/b]
"Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God;
and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God" (I John 4:7)

Opiuchus, my atheist friend, you are correct. 'Believers' and 'Freethinkers' alike fling way too much hate at one another. You all know that's not going to convince anyone of anything, don't you?

There are those of us who are satisfied with all that science and philosophy can tell us, and there are those of us who aren't. Faith is simply belief in truths which are not wholly provable by reason or observation; it starts with a belief in God, and accepts revelation (the Bible, Christian tradition etc.) as truth.

Nowhere does science conflict with the catholic Christian faith. Evolution is more than a hypothesis, it is a well-worn Theory, the pope said so himself in 1996. It does not contradict Christianity, however. It is a fundamental conviction of the Church since the middle-ages that faith and reason are never in conflict. As for the Bible, it uses a lot of "phenomenal" language, writing in the sense of appearances, rather than objectives. For instance, one says "the sun went down over the western horizon," no it didn't, but it looks like it does. That doesn't mean they are making a scientific statement. Please don't subscribe to the silly proposition that the Bible is a mythic work rather than historical; that it is reliable historically has been proven to the same extent that evolution has. You have to separate parts of the Bible that are meant to be literal-historical and those that are figurative-symbolic (early Genesis, Revelations etc.)

Those of you who are so convinced that all truth can be revealed through science should read some standard philosophy, like Immanuel Kant, to show that our senses do not necessarily perceive all that exists. For instance, you can not perceive my thoughts and dreams, yet they exist all the same. Immaterial reality is real.

Finally, be slow to label anyone as ignorant. Faith is unprovable through Reason, yes, but it certainly is not contradictory to it, and can certainly be defended by it. The cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments for God's existence have remained intact for centuries, yet arguments for God's non-existence are constantly changed, revamped, overhauled to account for changes in science, go figure. I would say God's existence is an [i]a priori[/i] truth, and there is psychological evidence that we are "hard-wired" to believe in a higher power. That doesn't mean I'm going to condemn atheists, as I empathize with their doubt.

Oh, and Elessar, I also have a Tolkien handle, because they're cool. You really should read some of his and C.S. Lewis' apologetics, might make you think.

Pax

(Reply to this)

Ophiuchus writes:
on Feb 16 2005 08:24 PM

Thankyou, Pax. It's nice to be appreciated. I used to enjoy a red-hot invective-flinging debate as much as the next athiest, but it wasn't long before I found it upsetting. I also realised that no-one was achieving anything other than a lot of insults and personal abuse being flung their way. I don't know about anyone else involved, but I didn't find it particularly convincing when a christian called me an imbecile or something similar. I imagine he didn't find it convincing when I called him a closed-minded lunatic too frightened to look at what was in front of his nose.
Those weren't our exact words, but they were pretty similar. But one thing I do know is that you don't find peace and harmony by screaming like a lot of chimpanzees. Although it does provide a rather persuasive argument in favour of our simian heritage.

(Reply to this)

Mainevent writes:
on Feb 17 2005 07:17 PM

What I never truly understood was why everyone feels the need to argue over it anyway. If a person wants to be a gentle, compassionate Christian who believes in the theory of creationism, why bother them? And if a person wants to believe in the theory of evolution, why bother them? Since it is obvious that neither of the two people will ever be able to prove or disprove one or the other, short of the second coming of Christ or some startlingly blatant proof that God in fact doesn't exist, why can't people just drop it? Believe what you believe and live your life happy in knowing that you are just as right as the other guy.

(Reply to this)

Ophiuchus writes:
on Feb 17 2005 08:39 PM

I guess they feel strongly about it. For someone absolutely convinced of his own rightness, it tends to be really irritating when other people don't see it that way. But you're right- it's an argument that can never be resolved. The best course of action would seem to be agreeing to disagree and thereafter striving to live in harmony. Of course, there will always be some people for whom the idea is just too mature and sensible to cope with.

(Reply to this)