The Passion of The Christ

A moderated forum for more thoughtful discussion.

Moderators: pd Rydia, LadyDragonClawsEDW

Archmage144
 

Re: Meh.

Unread postby Archmage144 » Fri Feb 27, 2004 5:04 pm

ARAMAIC. Guess who's dumb now?

Also, I heard that the movie was basically gratuitous gore with Jesus attached to it and didn't do anything to strengthen the faith of the faithful or convert new believers (as some people said it might). <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image</div>

</p>

User avatar
NebulaQueen
Moderator
 
Posts: 2557
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 6:38 pm

Re: Meh.

Unread postby NebulaQueen » Fri Feb 27, 2004 5:17 pm

*Flashback to earlier this afternoon, a few minutes after NQ got home from school...*

Mom: We're leaving at nine to go see the Passion of Christ movie.
Me: Uh...kay.

So...I'm going to go see the movie. I wasn't too interested in seeing it, but hey, the last time I went to see a movie with my family was when the Two Towers came out. Besides, I can go see whether the hype (negative or positive) around it is worth it or not.

I bet a bag of leftover popcorn, though, that it's going to end up somewhat neutral...not as bad as the detractors say it is, but not as good as the supporters say it is, either.


Ajil6
 

Re: The Passion of The Christ

Unread postby Ajil6 » Fri Feb 27, 2004 10:27 pm

I'm going to go see it. Just to see what the hubbub is about, bub. <p>[--------------------------------------------]
FETUS. I am a FETUS.</p>

FlamingDeth
Moderator
 
Posts: 2128
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 1:54 am

Re: The Passion of The Christ

Unread postby FlamingDeth » Fri Feb 27, 2004 10:41 pm

Anyone that tells you there is such a thing as "leftover popcorn" is selling something. <p>Image</p>

Ajil6
 

Re: The Passion of The Christ

Unread postby Ajil6 » Fri Feb 27, 2004 10:47 pm

...I also find it Ironic that this movie + my post rank, and uh. Yeah. Uhm.

Mo' like, Crucifixion of Budhapest <p>[--------------------------------------------]
FETUS. I am a FETUS.</p>

User avatar
Shinigori V2
Wishing she brought a backup turtle.
 
Posts: 7996
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2002 6:13 pm

Re: The Passion of The Christ

Unread postby Shinigori V2 » Fri Feb 27, 2004 10:54 pm

You know...The whole thing about the gore and violence and stuff is exactly why I'm not seeing it.

I'm a weenie, and can't stand the sight of blood. Me and my brother both, actually. Even if it's fake. <p>

<div style="text-align:center">
Image</div>
<div style="text-align:center">Why Barius has no family reunions.</div></p>

Elementalist Daien
 

Re: The Passion of The Christ

Unread postby Elementalist Daien » Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:27 am

Brian: Right, right. Aramaic.


I didn't even know the word for the language in English, and in Malta, everyone seems to call it "Hebrew". Forgiveness.


... My mistake doesn't make it less dumb. Not cause I dislike those two languages, but because no-one except like 100 people worldwide will be able to follow it without subtitles. And, honestly, subtitles DO kinda detract from a movie. Unless the voices are as horrible as some anime VAs in English.

But, hm. I don't know, really, just what I heard. If I watch it, then we'll see.

Also: I confirm that Mel Gibson's become a traditionalist Christian, the kind who think that everyone except Christians are going to helly hell hell. Of course, that might be old news, but it isn't for me, so I'm making sure.


Ajil6
 

Well

Unread postby Ajil6 » Sun Feb 29, 2004 2:52 am

o.O Has he? Ah well.

I just got back from seeing the movie with a friend of mine. :O It was a very powerful movie. That's pretty much the best I can say. The violence and gore isn't that bad. At least, not compared to the rest of Gibson's OMG brand of violence (i.e. Braveheart, The Patriot, What Women Want.)

I'm really hesitant to discuss my feelings on the movie though. Simply because right now my best textual verbalization of it would be "O_O". That and, I don't know how much I could say before I sparked some sort of angsty conversation.

Interesting to note, one of the big quotes that they were talking about that would supposedly spur anti-sematism was left in, they just took the subtitles out for it.

All in all, it was... interesting. Certainly made with a great deal of emotion. Whether or not anyone feels all of that though, is dependant on the person. But that's just what I think.

EDIT: Interesting note. The guy who played Jesus is the first cousin of a coach at my old Highschool.

Edited by: [url=http://pub30.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=ajil6>Ajil6</A] at: 2/29/04 3:10 am

Bardash Blackridge
 

Re: The Passion of The Christ

Unread postby Bardash Blackridge » Sun Feb 29, 2004 9:05 pm

Well, I saw the movie and I must say that it was quite moving. In my perspective, the movie was powerful and I appreciated Gibson's artistic interpretation of the Passion of Christ. A priest told me that it has changed the way he prays Mass. The movie enhanced my own prayer life. <p>________________________________________
You have never been anywhere until you have been here.</p>

Squintz Altec
Administrator
 
Posts: 1056
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 1:54 pm

Re: The Passion of The Christ

Unread postby Squintz Altec » Sun Feb 29, 2004 10:28 pm

I was gonna see it, but then someone ruined the ending for me.


Wolfbelly
 

Re: The Passion of The Christ

Unread postby Wolfbelly » Mon Mar 01, 2004 6:16 am

I just saw the movie today, and it seems as though my Philosophy of Ethics class will be making a field trip to see it for the Divine Command theory section of the course, so I'll likely see it again. Spoilers ahead ...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Good
1. Mel Gibson pulls absolutely zero punches. He makes the movie as gory as is fucking possible where he can. It may be hyperbole, to the extent that Gibson does it, but it works pretty well in evoking pathos.
2. Mel Gibson doesn't go the fanatical believer route and convey Jesus as the son of God, strangely enough. Instead, he comes off as a man wrongly persecuted and sentenced to death. Exceptions to this are shown, I think to a degree, in the flashback scenes.
3. Me and my brother saying "Dantes?" whenever Jesus appeared on screen. Silly "Count of Monte Cristo" reference.
4. Me saying "Father! Pro-tect MEEE!" before Jesus gives it up and dies on the cross. Silly "Legend" reference.
5. Satan looked damn cool.

Bad
1. Mel Gibson goes for the obligatory, blood-soaked money shot more than he needs to. The crucifixion itself was, in my opinion, a little unnecessary, and that could have gone without the need for long, steady shots on a hammer slowly driving a nail through his hands.
2. Me almost crying during the scene where Mary ran to Jesus when he fell for, I think, the second time. I was sitting there all "I promised myself I wouldn't ... *sniff* cry ..." ;_<
3. The pointlesness of Satan in the movie, and the head scratching scene at the end of the movie where he just snaps for no apparent reason.
4. The serious lack of character development. The head priest is just an evil priest. We see nothing regarding how the presence of Jesus is causing a rift within the temple, aside from a scornful remark when he's on the cross. Judas is just some foolish, crazy guy. That guy that's always standing next to Mary is just that guy who's always standing next to Mary.
5. The retardedly Hollywood setup for a sequel.


Bardash Blackridge
 

Re: The Passion of The Christ

Unread postby Bardash Blackridge » Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:39 am

That "headscratching scene where Satan snapped" was symbolizing his defeat by Jesus's death. Notice as the camera zooms out that hell was empty. The souls of the people who died before Jesus's death were saved by the death of Christ. I would snap to if I lost all the souls that I had gained for my own pleasure to torture. And....one other note: I don't think that it is a fanatical belief to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. <p>________________________________________
You have never been anywhere until you have been here.</p>

Wolfbelly
 

Re: Satan

Unread postby Wolfbelly » Tue Mar 02, 2004 1:10 am

Hmm, that makes sense. And regarding the fanatical believer comment, I mean "the Son of God" as in "Godlike in every way," meaning "Holds the same, peaceful gaze, ignores the whips and pain, generally comes off as inhuman through his divine grace." Instead, Gibson portrayed him as a man, which allowed the audience to better empathize with him and all. I guess I'm trying to say that in this movie, Jesus was more human than divine. And that's good.


Just Damn Evil
 

Re: Satan

Unread postby Just Damn Evil » Tue Mar 02, 2004 5:46 pm

So, they make a movie about a great moral teacher, but the film has nothing at all to do with his teachings. Huh.

Question: why isn't Jesus being played by a Semite?

Testimony:
<span style="font-size:xx-small;">"First off I found the movie to be a life changing event. It portayed everything I had ever heard about the suffering of Christ as I knew it to be in a truthful and honest manner. It portrayed Roman punishment true to the accounts I have studied. It portrayed Roman crucifixion true to the accounts I have studied. It portrayed everything about the side stories concerning Judas, Pilate, Mary and others to what I believe actually accured. I can't find the words to describe this movie to you. After watching the movie I sat in silence for the longest time speachless. I have a new respect for Jesus and the suffering he endured for our sins. I found no trace of hate in the movie. Actually I found a re-occuring theme of love throughout the movie. If you have not seen the movie you have no right to trash it. ...my stance on my beliefs is well founded and will never waver. ...I study and respect the words of Christ as I know and understand them to be. The Passion portrayed those beliefs in such an incredible way. If anything I came away from the movie realizing I am way to judgemental and have so much to change in my life. Christ as I know and understood him taught Love for your fellow man, he taught self sacrifice he taught so many things modern christianity has forgotten. I came away realizing how petty some things are that different sects of Christianity fight about. I will no longer forget these things. I applaud Mel Gibson for the creation of this film. It is to say the least inspiring and powerful. If you have not seen it I highly reccommend it."</span>

So to answer your question, that's why I'm not seeing it.

Edited by: [url=http://pub30.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=justdamnevil>Just]&nbsp; Image at: 3/2/04 5:49 pm

Bardash Blackridge
 

Re: The Passion of The Christ

Unread postby Bardash Blackridge » Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:42 pm

Alright, Wolfbelly, I apologize for my misunderstanding and I must agree that Gibson's focus on the human nature of Christ makes the movie that much more powerful. I find nothing more powerful than Christ, although divine, loved humanity with a human heart. The innocent Lamb of God took upon Himself the burden of our sins, so that we may be made free. For myself, I know how difficult it is to love someone with Christ's love for the slightest grievance. I hope that each day my love may be like unto Christ's love.


I think that if Gibson wanted to include Christ's teachings, he would have entitled the movie "The Life of Christ."

So...you're not seeing it because of that testimony or what? <p>________________________________________
You have never been anywhere until you have been here.</p>

Uncle Pervy
 

Re: The Passion of The Christ

Unread postby Uncle Pervy » Wed Mar 03, 2004 3:22 pm

Jesus isn't Indie enough :(


Just Damn Evil
 

Re: The Passion of The Christ

Unread postby Just Damn Evil » Wed Mar 03, 2004 4:24 pm

If I'm going to see a movie claiming to be a thought-provoking, artistic piece of cinema with a message behind it, I'd prefer the director to have some intelligence, some creativity, and a message deeper than "Hey! Look who killed the best man to ever walk this Earth!" Personally, I think Mel Gibson is doing a real disservice to Christ by using his image to endorse his own anti-Semitism.

Just some historical input, here; Pontius Pilate, the weak ruler whom the Jews "force" to punish Jesus to the fullest, was actually a brutal tyrant.


Seethe347
 

Re: The Passion of The Christ

Unread postby Seethe347 » Thu Mar 04, 2004 5:05 am

Now... Where do you get the idea that the movie is anti-Semetic or doesn't carry a deeper message than what you said? <p>
If you are reading this, it means that I am logged in.</p>

Bardash Blackridge
 

Re: The Passion of The Christ

Unread postby Bardash Blackridge » Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

...and where does the idea originate that Gibson is anti-Semitic? <p>________________________________________
You have never been anywhere until you have been here.</p>Edited by: Bardash Blackridge at: 3/4/04 9:47 am

Just Damn Evil
 

Re: The Passion of The Christ

Unread postby Just Damn Evil » Thu Mar 04, 2004 11:49 am

Gibson's father is an outspoken anti-Semite who claims that the Holocaust never happened. Now, I don't think it's necessarily fair to visit the inquities of the father unto any particular latter generation, but what does Mel himself have to say about this matter? Two things.

First, that a lot of people died in World War II. Probably some Jews. Secondly, that his father "never lies".

As if anti-Semitism was Gibson's only bigotry. He's an outspoken homophobe, and an ultraconservative Catholic - the kind that rejects Vatican II as a liberal corruption

The film is anti-Semitic because it changes around historical characters to present the Jews as the bad guys. It may be based on one of the Gospels, but the Gospels themselves are suspect - the characterization of the Jews as bloodthirsty and the Romans as just going along with it smacks of an attempt to get on the Roman's side. Christians needed Roman converts and the Jews were a lost cause in that respect. So let's change around the scene - a bloodthirsty tyrant becomes the "good guy", and Jesus' death changes from an execution for the crime of dissent to a murder fueled by a hateful group of non-Aryans.

There *is* no deeper message. Some claim that it demonstrates Christ's love for humanity - but the movie seems to focus on where that love got him. Since Mad Max, all of Gibson's characters have been obsessed with vengeance. In the movie, as the camera slowly zooms in on the holes in Christ's hands, it's clear "love" isn't on the director's mind.


User avatar
NebulaQueen
Moderator
 
Posts: 2557
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 6:38 pm

Re: Passion of Christ

Unread postby NebulaQueen » Thu Mar 04, 2004 3:30 pm

Actually, when I saw the holes, I didn't read that as "Arrgh, vengeance!" I read that as, "Hot damn! This guy's walking, even though he was just crucified to death! Just look at 'dem holes!"

So...yeah. I think the holes were supposed to be a symbol of the miracle of his rebirth as opposed to "lets go kill us some Jews".

And now, for a belated movie review.

Basically, Passion of Christ was a pretty good flick, in my opinion. As I didn't hear too much of the hype beforehand, I didn't have that much bias other than "the only reason I'm seeing this is because the family wanted to, and I'm being dragged along". In other words, apathy with some mild curiousity put into the mix.

However, when I saw the movie, I was pleasantly surprised. Some of the parts were pretty moving...others, though...well, more on that later.

Basically, what I think the movie was trying to pull off was the whole "courage in the face of adversity". While good ol' Buddy Christ wasn't as stoic as many another play would pull off, he kept on going. Whatta trooper.

Anyways, like I said earlier, some parts were pretty moving. Other parts, however, went overboard. I'm not talking about violence or gore here-I'm talking about the drama in general. Some parts felt like they were trying to hard to make it "HARDCORE AND EMOTIONAL, WOW!" (For example, was the surround sound really needed as the drops of blood fell from the hammered nails?) Really, it could have been better if they didn't try to force some stuff.

And now, for the moment you've all been waiting for...the infamous Anti-Semitism.

To be honest, I didn't see any. When the crowd went after Jesus, I didn't think of it as Jews everywhere slovering over his death. Instead, I saw a group of scared extremists trying to get rid of what scared them.

Damn fundies.

Now, as for Mel's supposed anti-semitism, this is the most I've heard about it. I heard a bit about him rejected Vatican II, but since I wasn't sure whether or not it was just hearsay, I just brushed it off. Also, to be frank, I didn't really care, since I didn't care that much about the movie at the time-keep in mind that going to see Passion was a surprise for me, not a planned event. If I had took the rumors a bit more and payed more attention to the hype, perhaps I would have entered the movie with a different outlook. However, whatever bias Gibson may have, I didn't see it corrupt the film.

As for Pilate, there was one thing about him that stood out the most-exasperation. Honestly, I almost expected him to shout out, "Fuckin' mob! Get off my damn lawn!" *coughs* But anyways. I saw Pilate as being more tired the whole mess as opposed to being kindly and benevolent. But to be fair, that's a personal thing...I doubt that's what the movie was trying to pull off.

So, as for Pilate, they did portray him innacurately in some/many (circle for preference!) ways. However, I imagine that even in history, he had a, "Shit! No matter what I do, I'm screwed!" mentality. Which...well, he was. If he allowed another riot/rebellion, he'd be screwed. If he crucified another non criminal, he was screwed. Really, no way for him to win.

Final Statement: While the Passion of Christ isn't the best movie out there, it's definately not a waste of money. While I'm not a Christian, I still managed to enjoy it, despite moments of over-the-topness that occured from time to time. I wouldn't recommend it to everyone, though. I imagine that most would be pretty much "meh" over it. <p>

<span style="font-size:xx-small;">
"Hello, I'm Troy Mclure! You may remember me from such realms as Hell, and Gaera!"-Shinigori, OOC</span></p>

Just Damn Evil
 

Re: Passion of the Christ

Unread postby Just Damn Evil » Fri Mar 05, 2004 12:14 pm

Actually, Pilate was in no way screwed because the Jews weren't citizens - they didn't have rights, they weren't even considered human. Roman leaders could have crucified over two thousand of them indiscriminately - and they did. Pilate had already executed countless dissenters, and this one was trying to tell people they don't need money to have rights? Get rid of him, ASAP! Pilate could care less about riots - this was an occupied country. They had already defeated the Jews in war, the most technologically advanced army in the world has little to fear from poorly organized small groups of Jews armed with sticks and stones; and poorly organized they were.

This is another way Gibson fails in his movie - there's no historical perspective whatsoever! There's no attention to the problems going on in Jerusalem, or even the reason why aryan Jesus is being executed. You'd think Christ was the only spiritual leader ever crucified and that the Christians were the only Jewish sect to rise up against the opressive government.

Life of Brian. Watch it. That's what really went on.


Wolfbelly
 

Re: Passion of the Christ

Unread postby Wolfbelly » Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:39 am

Quote:
This is another way Gibson fails in his movie - there's no historical perspective whatsoever!
*ahem* You DO know that this story is based on the Bible, right? Not meant to be inflammatory or anything, but while the Bible does give a nod to actual historical happenings, it's in no way a reputable source for history. It's more focused on the religious aspect of things ... kinda like Gibson's movie.


Just Damn Evil
 

Re: Passion of the Christ

Unread postby Just Damn Evil » Mon Mar 08, 2004 4:22 pm

That would be a good point, except that the alleged point of this movie is to portray, realistically, the suffering Jesus went through for our sins. You can't claim to show realism when you're basing your works on four widely varying, contradicting accounts written years after Christ's "death".

By the way, and this is somewhat off-topic, have you seen Mel Gibson's rendition of Hamlet? Gibson is a very angry man.


Uncle Pervy
 

Re: Passion of the Christ

Unread postby Uncle Pervy » Tue Mar 09, 2004 3:10 am

JDE: I want your sources on the post you made about the Political troubles in the Roman occupied lands, if you would.


Just Damn Evil
 

Re: Passion of the Christ

Unread postby Just Damn Evil » Tue Mar 09, 2004 8:44 pm

Who is the Real Jesus of Nazareth?

Edited by: Just Damn Evil&nbsp; Image at: 3/9/04 9:17 pm

Uncle Pervy
 

Re: Passion of the Christ

Unread postby Uncle Pervy » Wed Mar 10, 2004 5:45 pm

You have one website that is based off one book.

Honestly, that's hardly enough research to speak authoritatively in topics where a lot of what you see is interpretation, such as History or Mythology.

I say this because in my own admittedly scant readings on the subject, I really haven't seen some of the interpretations that you have. So, you may want to do a bit more research on it.


Just Damn Evil
 

Re: Passion of the Christ

Unread postby Just Damn Evil » Wed Mar 10, 2004 10:27 pm

Pontius Pilate, not quite so loveable.

Don't you think it's rather tacky to ask for sources only to call them insufficient? Especially since you've proffered nothing in remonstration.

For the record, I'm not basing my opinions off of these websites, they're just the first relatively respectable links to pop up in a basic search. This is all coming from a rudimentary education on Roman history.

First of all, that Jerusalem was a country taken over and then occupied by Rome is a fact of history. That Jews were often executed by three days of hanging by their wrists until their lungs collapsed is equally inarguable, although mostly unemphasized. That Judaism was split into numerous sects is also universally agreed upon - honestly, what do you think the Pharisees were? That Pontius Pilate was a ruthless leader chosen to control an occupied populace that, for reasons unknown, was refusing to worship Roman gods is challenged only by the Gospels and people who, through the religious bias in which they were raised, believe the Gospels to be a more object and accurate portrayal of history than secular historical documents.

And speaking of the Gospels, and returning to the topic of this thread, Gibson allegely left out the commendable actions of Nicodemus and Joseph of Aramathea - specifically, when they violated a long-standing Jewish taboo by sympathetically taking Christ's corpse off the cross, and when Joseph donated his own tomb for Jesus. Now, I wonder why Gibson chose not to include these scenes.


FlamingDeth
Moderator
 
Posts: 2128
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 1:54 am

Re: Passion of the Christ

Unread postby FlamingDeth » Thu Mar 11, 2004 2:37 am

For the record, it's not quite as brazen as you'd like to think for him to call the single web page you presented in your previous post insufficient, especially when it's not hosted somewhere that's known and reputable. <p>Image</p>

Uncle Pervy
 

Re: Passion of the Christ

Unread postby Uncle Pervy » Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:42 am

Especially when that webpage claims only a single source itself. >_>;

The second one is significantly better, if extremely lacking in detail.

And the reason I don't offer much is simply because I don't presume to know it in my own insufficient studies.


User avatar
Shinigori V2
Wishing she brought a backup turtle.
 
Posts: 7996
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2002 6:13 pm

Re: Passion of the Christ

Unread postby Shinigori V2 » Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:49 am

Yeah, only someone with their head pretty far up their ass would do that, y'know? <p>

<div style="text-align:center">
Image</div>
<div style="text-align:center">Why Barius has no family reunions.</div></p>

Just Damn Evil
 

Re: Passion of the Christ

Unread postby Just Damn Evil » Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:30 am

I fail to see what's so pig-headed about presuming one knows things.

By the way, I've been doing this for a long time. I've frequented religious debate chat rooms and message boards since middle school. I know the different sides. I've picked up the different arguments. And this is the discussion forum. If someone says The Passion of the Christ is historically accurate, I'm going to discuss why it isn't, and I'd hardly call doing so insolence especially with four years of habitual debate under my belt.

If you have a problem with something I've said, point it out specifically, explain why you differ in opinion, and we'll, maybe, discuss the issue at hand.

Edited by: [url=http://pub30.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=justdamnevil>Just]&nbsp; Image at: 3/11/04 8:04 pm

Just Damn Evil
 

Re: Passion of the Christ

Unread postby Just Damn Evil » Thu Mar 11, 2004 7:56 pm

Edit: Nothing to see here. Move along, citizen.

Edited by: [url=http://pub30.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=justdamnevil>Just]&nbsp; Image at: 3/13/04 2:55 am

User avatar
Deeum
 
Posts: 2109
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2002 4:25 am

Re: Passion of the Christ

Unread postby Deeum » Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:07 pm

Sorata:
Don't post here unless you have something to say ON TOPIC.
I'm deleting that post. <p><div style="text-align:center">
Image
</div></p>

Uncle Pervy
 

Re: Passion of the Christ

Unread postby Uncle Pervy » Fri Mar 12, 2004 4:46 am

No one said that you couldn't do it. I simply think that it would behoove you to do a little more research. I think what you have so far is a little one-sided, that is all.

The trouble with presuming things is simply that sometimes, one ends up wildly off base. Much of what you say contradicts my readings on Rome. This is why I wanted to know your sources. Given that you really don't have all that many, I ponder if you've really read any other interpretations at all.


Just Damn Evil
 

Re: Passion of the Christ

Unread postby Just Damn Evil » Sat Mar 13, 2004 4:06 am


<span style="font-size:xx-small;">Much of what you say contradicts my readings on Rome. This is why I wanted to know your sources.</span>
Perhaps it would behoove you, then, to present some of your own.


<span style="font-size:xx-small;">Given that you really don't have all that many...</span>
Wrong. If someone were to enter a discussion forum and post an essay with a myriad of sources, do you know what I'd think? I'd think that was the first time they'd ever discussed that topic.

As I said before, I have discussed this topic and ones like it for four years, which means four years of sources being presented in defense and rebuttal of my analysis. Perhaps I'm just strange, but I don't go to the effort of bookmarking every website with an opinion just in case someone tries to discredit me without presenting any information himself.

What you're asking for is comparable to demanding sources backing the claim that Germany lost World War II.


Uncle Pervy
 

Re: Passion of the Christ

Unread postby Uncle Pervy » Sat Mar 13, 2004 4:49 pm

I would say that Germany's defeat in WWII and Roman politics in one of their conquered lands are very different indeed. One happened within living memory and is spoken of all the time. The other happened two thousand years ago, after many sources have been destroyed by various wars and atrocities.

Essentially, one is common knowledge, the other is esoteria that one doesn't exactly pick up off the streets. And given there are numerous interpretations.

As for my own? This requires me to have them onhand. You'll note that I haven't said very much on the topic itself. This is because the library has my sources. And, I find the internet is very unreliable for a historical source, as there are no standards of publication to be met in many cases, and few subjects are treated with any real level of detail.


Just Damn Evil
 

Re: Passion of the Christ

Unread postby Just Damn Evil » Sat Mar 13, 2004 10:31 pm

So, basically, you've got nothing.

The "standards of publication" are often grossly overestimated.

Edited by: Just Damn Evil&nbsp; Image at: 3/13/04 10:34 pm

Uncle Pervy
 

Re: Passion of the Christ

Unread postby Uncle Pervy » Mon Mar 15, 2004 7:55 pm

I simple declare nothing. Only a simpleton would go into a historical discussion without good backing.


Just Damn Evil
 

Re: Passion of the Christ

Unread postby Just Damn Evil » Tue Mar 16, 2004 4:22 pm

<span style="font-size:medium;">Indeed.</span>

Such is the nature of apologetics.


PreviousNext

Return to Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest

cron

Yalogank