Is violent entertainment spirtually harmful?

Hi Real Life,

Here is a *partial* list of your so-called "questions", I direct you to your following text

real life wrote:

I simply asked you a couple of questions

Read on and see for yourself.

real life wrote:

So if I invoke your name and miscontrue something you said as I commit a crime, then you're responsible, right?

Imputes an assertion of your claims.

real life wrote:

My new motto "Chumly told me to."

Imputes an assertion of your claims.

real life wrote:

Use is not the same as misuse. Think about it, Chumly.

Imputes an assertion of your claims

Bartikus wrote:

It's kinda sad that you had to point this out RL.

Imputes an assertion of Bartikus' claims.

real life wrote:

It would seem rather self evident that blaming Christ for Hitler is a ridiculous proposition.

A direct and specific claim.

real life wrote:

Chumly seems to be a product of the very type of propaganda that he claims has no effect on people's thinking. Modern media are powerful manipulators of public opinion, and their sublety is unmatched.

A number of direct and specific claims.

real life wrote:

I always wonder about people like that. What would they be like if they turned off the TV for a year? But it'll never happen because they usually cannot bring themselves to turn it off. It seems they haven't the will power to switch it off.

A number of direct and specific claims.

real life wrote:

The best we can hope for is that they will begin to watch with a doubting attitude and begin to question the presuppositions that they are being fed.

A number of direct and specific claims.

0 Replies

Yeah I remember what I said alright.

I also said you couldn't answer.

I see you still haven't. Laughing

0 Replies

The question I see is

real life wrote:

So if I invoke your name and miscontrue something you said as I commit a crime, then you're responsible, right?

I would answer on two counts:
1) That your imputed therefore ("so") is incongruent with my text in question.
2) That my response to your query "right?" is no.

Further I would need substantiation for your direct claims and agreement on the need for defining one's terms if we are to have a normalized dialogue. Finally it would be of great benefit to our continued discourse should you also provide substantiation of your imputed assertions of claims.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

The question I see is
real life wrote:
So if I invoke your name and miscontrue something you said as I commit a crime, then you're responsible, right?
I would answer on two counts:
1) That your imputed therefore ("so") is incongruent with my text in question.
2) That my response to your query "right?" is no.

Further I would need substantiation for your direct claims and agreement on the need for defining one's terms if we are to have a normalized dialogue. Finally it would be of great benefit to our continued discourse should you also provide substantiation of your imputed assertions of claims.

The clear implication of your statement:

Chumly wrote:

I said "there has been vastly more violent outcomes from the likes of figures such as Jesus".

Evidence? All the innumerable wars (both regular and holy) in which the father, the son and the holy ghost are invoked. The Nazi's themselves were very much Christians. The outcome of Jesus' life was in effect Christianity. Christianity is well documented as a spring board for violence and bigotry. Witness the KKK, the Christian persecution of the Jews, the Christian persecution of so-called witches.

is to try to establish some sort of linkage between the Nazis and KKK and the words and life of Jesus Christ.

I point out that simply because someone claims to act in accordance with a set of beliefs, it does not follow that their actions are in agreement with what they claim.

If I claim to be following the words and advice of Chumly as I commit dastardly deeds, is it true that I am following just because I claim to do so?

In a nutshell, I am demolishing your cheap smear job.

0 Replies

Further I would need substantiation for your direct claims and agreement on the need for defining one's terms if we are to have a normalized dialogue. Finally it would be of great benefit to our continued discourse should you also provide substantiation of your imputed assertions of claims.

Here is a *partial* list of your so-called "questions", I direct you to your following text

real life wrote:

I simply asked you a couple of questions

Read on and see for yourself.

real life wrote:

So if I invoke your name and miscontrue something you said as I commit a crime, then you're responsible, right?

Imputes an assertion of your claims.

real life wrote:

My new motto "Chumly told me to."

Imputes an assertion of your claims.

real life wrote:

Use is not the same as misuse. Think about it, Chumly.

Imputes an assertion of your claims

Bartikus wrote:

It's kinda sad that you had to point this out RL.

Imputes an assertion of Bartikus' claims.

real life wrote:

It would seem rather self evident that blaming Christ for Hitler is a ridiculous proposition.

A direct and specific claim.

real life wrote:

Chumly seems to be a product of the very type of propaganda that he claims has no effect on people's thinking. Modern media are powerful manipulators of public opinion, and their sublety is unmatched.

A number of direct and specific claims.

real life wrote:

I always wonder about people like that. What would they be like if they turned off the TV for a year? But it'll never happen because they usually cannot bring themselves to turn it off. It seems they haven't the will power to switch it off.

A number of direct and specific claims.

real life wrote:

The best we can hope for is that they will begin to watch with a doubting attitude and begin to question the presuppositions that they are being fed.

A number of direct and specific claims.[/quote]

0 Replies

Irrelative of your claims that some do not act in accordance with your interpretations I again maintain my initial claim:

"I assert there has been vastly more violent outcomes from the likes of figures such as Senator McCarthy, Nixon, Stalin, Henry Ford, Hitler, Jesus and Mohammed, than from any amount of "violent movies and video games".

And ask that you demonstrate that your interpretation of the bible is more valid than someone else's.

Also see above for my request as per needing substantiation for your direct claims etc

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Further I would need substantiation for your direct claims and agreement on the need for defining one's terms if we are to have a normalized dialogue. Finally it would be of great benefit to our continued discourse should you also provide substantiation of your imputed assertions of claims.

Here is a *partial* list of your so-called "questions", I direct you to your following text
real life wrote:
I simply asked you a couple of questions
Read on and see for yourself.
real life wrote:
So if I invoke your name and miscontrue something you said as I commit a crime, then you're responsible, right?
Imputes an assertion of your claims.
real life wrote:
My new motto "Chumly told me to."
Imputes an assertion of your claims.
real life wrote:
Use is not the same as misuse. Think about it, Chumly.
Imputes an assertion of your claims
Bartikus wrote:
It's kinda sad that you had to point this out RL.
Imputes an assertion of Bartikus' claims.
real life wrote:
It would seem rather self evident that blaming Christ for Hitler is a ridiculous proposition.
A direct and specific claim.
real life wrote:
Chumly seems to be a product of the very type of propaganda that he claims has no effect on people's thinking. Modern media are powerful manipulators of public opinion, and their sublety is unmatched.
A number of direct and specific claims.
real life wrote:
I always wonder about people like that. What would they be like if they turned off the TV for a year? But it'll never happen because they usually cannot bring themselves to turn it off. It seems they haven't the will power to switch it off.
A number of direct and specific claims.
real life wrote:
The best we can hope for is that they will begin to watch with a doubting attitude and begin to question the presuppositions that they are being fed.
A number of direct and specific claims.

Not sure what terms you need defined, Chumly. Let me know what you are having difficulty with.

The words I used were mostly small ones.

0 Replies

Hi Real Life,
I will ask for terms as needed. Substantiation for your direct claims is a requisite as per the above. And if you could respond to my post "Irrelative of your claims......" I would appreciate it. I have to go to work so I'll tune in a day or two. It's an interesting dialogue.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

If I claim to be following the words and advice of Chumly as I commit dastardly deeds, is it true that I am following just because I claim to do so?

Ah, a question for me!

If the words and advice and actions of Chumly are based on myth and faith, if the words and advice and actions of Chumly are widely open to interpretation, if the words and advice and actions of Chumly are in contest, if Chumly himself may well be mythological and not real, I would argue that it is indeed possible that one can commit dastardly deeds, and believe to be following the words and advice and actions of Chumly.

See you in a day or two Smile

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Irrelative of your claims that some do not act in accordance with your interpretations I again maintain my initial claim:

"I assert there has been vastly more violent outcomes from the likes of figures such as Senator McCarthy, Nixon, Stalin, Henry Ford, Hitler, Jesus and Mohammed, than from any amount of "violent movies and video games".

And ask that you demonstrate that your interpretation of the bible is more valid than someone else's.

Also see above for my request as per needing substantiation for your direct claims etc

Care to elaborate on what "violent outcomes" from McCarthy, Nixon, Ford , Jesus? ( You've already tried Jesus, but I'd like you to try again. I don't think your examples hold any water at all.)

Do you hold these personally responsible for what you claim are these violent outcomes?

Seems a rather farfetched and vague charge against these.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:
Irrelative of your claims that some do not act in accordance with your interpretations I again maintain my initial claim:

"I assert there has been vastly more violent outcomes from the likes of figures such as Senator McCarthy, Nixon, Stalin, Henry Ford, Hitler, Jesus and Mohammed, than from any amount of "violent movies and video games".

And ask that you demonstrate that your interpretation of the bible is more valid than someone else's.

Also see above for my request as per needing substantiation for your direct claims etc

Care to elaborate on what "violent outcomes" from McCarthy, Nixon, Ford , Jesus? ( You've already tried Jesus, but I'd like you to try again. I don't think your examples hold any water at all.)

Do you hold these personally responsible for what you claim are these violent outcomes?

Seems a rather farfetched and vague charge against these.

Again I point out that my assertion is relative to "violent movies and video games". As such, your question needs to be in the context of my claim, and not posed as an absolute.

Your question as it stands: "Care to elaborate on what "violent outcomes" from McCarthy, Nixon, Ford , Jesus? ( You've already tried Jesus, but I'd like you to try again. I don't think your examples hold any water at all.)"

Further, the argument as to the issue of personal responsibility, although interesting, is not core to my assertion of the relative difference in "violent outcomes".

The personal responsibility factor (which I am willing to discus) does not change my argument that "vastly more violent outcomes from the likes of figures such as Senator McCarthy, Nixon, Stalin, Henry Ford, Hitler, Jesus and Mohammed, than from any amount of "violent movies and video games." Why?

Because my premise is based on the relative differences in violence, and not in how you may wish to justify or rationalize religious based violence.

Also, I have seen no evidence as per "Also see above for my request as per needing substantiation for your direct claims etc", I would need this to move forward.

Also, when you make the counter "I don't think your examples hold any water at all." but you do not justify the point, I cannot take your assertion as having merit.

Once you have met the above criteria, I will begin my relative argument on the violent outcome issue.

0 Replies

So you think watching a movie about Jesus' life has roughly the same effect as watching a slasher movie?

0 Replies

Are you talking about what effect it might have on me, or some subjective and oblique "they"?
Whose interpretation of Jesus' life should we use for this movie?
Those who have engendered violent outcomes from the likes of Jesus?
Or those who believe that all those who have engendered violent outcomes from the likes of Jesus are sinners?
How shall we show the violent outcomes from the likes of Jesus in the movies; from a sympathetic or unsympathetic perspective towards Jesus?
And perhaps most importantly, can I be the producer, and will you pay for movie, and where is the casting couch for the requisite harlots that need saving?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

So you think watching a movie about Jesus' life has roughly the same effect as watching a slasher movie?

if that movie is "the passion of the christ", it's entirely possible. essentially, it is a slasher movie.

0 Replies

Isn't it obvious? Those 'scholars' were the lapdogs of Satan.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

neologist wrote:
So you think watching a movie about Jesus' life has roughly the same effect as watching a slasher movie?

if that movie is "the passion of the christ", it's entirely possible. essentially, it is a slasher movie.

Ya got me!

I should have compared reading the gospels to reading Mein Kampf or {insert appropriate title here}.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

We are sort of off topic here; but if Jesus' words are misunderstood or abused, it would be the fault of the obfuscator.

As far as the 'colloquium of scholars' is concerned, those who paid their salaries got what they paid for.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
neologist wrote:
So you think watching a movie about Jesus' life has roughly the same effect as watching a slasher movie?

if that movie is "the passion of the christ", it's entirely possible. essentially, it is a slasher movie.
Ya got me!

I should have compared reading the gospels to reading Mein Kampf or {insert appropriate title here}.

the only real problem i have with "the passion" is that they seem to have played around with the story via composites, etc.; and that the narrative leading to the brutality was pretty weak. assuming that everyone knows the whole story as told by scripture is a little presumptuous. if that were true, there's be no reason for the film to be made.

like i said earlier in the thread, i don't mind violence in the arts as long as it serves some purpose to the overall story.

what i still haven't figured out, is why "the passion of the christ" was embraced and "the last temptation of christ" was so dramatically reviled by the christian community.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Common misconceptions.

Mark's gospel was written at the latest 50AD since fragments of it exist from that date.

Late dating of the Gospels and the NT is common among liberal scholars, but impossible to maintain if you're actually looking at the mountains of textual evidence available.

Early translations of the Bible into other languages , as well as numerouse citations from the Fathers confirm the Greek text that has been passed down to the present day as accurate.

0 Replies

Is violent entertainment spirtually harmful?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know