Mel Gibson's The Passion, sparking concern from the ADL.

There IS too much to read and I'm not buying it yet... but will. Here's something in the meantime (my emphases):


Poetryshall we have
it. In the meantime, if you demand on the one hand,
the raw material of poetry in
all its rawness and
that which is on the other hand
genuine, you are interested in poetry.

Marianne Moore

You truly are a pompous ass.
---------------------------------
Unless it is stipulated that the TOS doesn't apply to everyone, this should be retracted. We all have tempers.

Tartarin

Now that is a lovely piece! There is a full course meal in nearly every sentence, and it occurs to me that I too might fit Jackson's description of Clinton..."The man is all appetite". I'm drawn to poetry that allows in the natural world, and acknowledges kinship with it. Ted Hughes is a favorite... http://www.cs.otago.ac.nz/staffpriv/alik/wodwo.html

One of the deep evils of the trajectory of Christian influence has been its dichotomization of the animal and the spiritual. Given the opportunity to go back in time, I'd take along one of Heston's guns and shoot Augustine between the eyes.

sofia

I acknowledge it is a violation of the TOS.

If shouted (bold faced type substituted for all caps) from the pulpit, a bevy of smiley signs held up to punctuate the points made ( like a Lionel toy train trying to run down an elephant) would certainly bring a round of laughter from the congregation. I suggest returning to preaching to the choir as they will only start singing.

Sofia. Please take it easy.

Sofia is correct, yet I am not beside myself with remorse. Fruitful debate is (according to a study by Harvard of on-line communities, which I'll be happy to link if anyone would like to see it) most often stymied by a particular discourse style which the fellow whom I addressed utilizes as a matter of course. It is very simple to construct some rule such as 'no personal references', but considerably more difficult to codify against ad hominem arguments or logical inconsistencies or repeated non-address to specifics. Even tougher to write rules that might make a fool a smarter man.

If I may be indulged just this once -

My suggestion was based on the old saying about casting stones...

We keep seeing this rudeness of style in particular A2K'ers. I associate it with the present administration because they seem to wallow in that form of incivility. The idea is, take a statement, any statement and, whether you know it's a lie or whether you just know you can't substantiate it, repeat it and repeat it and repeat it until you "make it true" or drive everyone else away. There's nothing in the rules about this that I can remember, possibly because the rules were written by pretty civilized people. I would MUCH rather stand up against this stuff at the risk of being tossed out of A2K than go along with it. It's just another form of lying, and I think many of us are damn tired of lies.

I'm glad you guys are keeping me in your prayers. [Busy preparing a real response about a real debate with some other guy in some other forum]

Don't cry for me, Argentina (I know Tart and LW are not... :wink: ). I didn't take personally Dr. Blatham's violation of TOS. In fact, I asked for his refresingly amusing favors...

Anyway, I understand others might be offended by his language... Funny how some think that my smileys and bold characters equal a comparable violation of TOS that triggered the fertility of his imagination... Twisting the truth, it is called.

Take care.

Blatham - this is the best argument yet: "Not to mention the thousands of children buggered senseless by Catholic priests and bishops?" Perfect. Defend the disgusting vile acts of NAMBLA by giving us your opinion of someone else. Do you have anything better than that? I doubt it. People like you normally resort to your defense mechanism when they attempt to justify that which cannot be justified. Please, prove me wrong because I would love to know how any intelligent person can defend NAMBLA.

seb

It wasn't a defense of NAMBLA. It was a pointed reference to the hypocrisy of the Catholic church which has operated in far too many instances and in far too many places as something like an upmarket pedophile ring, allowing, and protecting perpetrators of precisely what you decry in NAMBLA (though minus consent). Though the catholic church has a rich philosophical tradition (the North American evangelical community does not) and though I personally have great respect for the individual who now sits as Pope (not absolute, in certain areas I think him a dangerous fool) I grant the church, and it's representatives up through the Pope to have no moral authority in the slightest.

The Catholic Church decries homosexuality but turns a blind eye to pedophilia in its own institution.

NAMBLA promotes homosexuality and engages in its practices openly.

Which is more honest?

"I am not a Catholic," said Oscar Wilde. "I am simply a violent Papist." He also called the church "a scarlett woman." He repented on his deathbed at 41, a homosexual martyr as his motivation for not properly defending himself at trial was because he sincerely didn't believe there was anything wrong with it.

It's the omnipotence of the church, the attitude that, "How dare anyone question how the church is run." Go back into history to the building of the great cathedrals and witness the graft and embezzlement within the church hierarchy. Is the church corrupt today? That's for each individual (not a collective body) to decide, within or without the church. The government certainly has pussy-footed around, the local authorities now stymied because of the striking down of the sodomy laws (actually the proper thing to do). The building of the largest modern catheral in LA during a time when the poor are suffering more than ever in this bad economy makes a striking statement about the church's priorities.

But, back to the film, I have not seen it as yet and can only go by what I know about Gibson and his accomplishments. I'm not expecting much and may actually like the film despite another pretty boy cast as Jesus.

Tartarin--
Pointing out that someone has violated the community rules can be done while taking it easy.

The rules apply to everyone, or no one. I am pretty sure there are plenty of instances we'd all like to share our opinion that someone is a pompous ass-- But, due to the TOS, we say it another way--or make our argument--or leave the thread.

It is telling to see who holds themselves above the rules for the masses.

I just don't like unfairness, and I point it out when I see it. Sometimes.

I don't expect any response from blatham. Just said what I felt like saying, within the rules.

I agree somewhat, Sofia, but the target has professed they were not uncomfortable with the comment. It really is up to them to file a complaint, although I'm not suggesting it here and I seldom see blatham lose any composure. Let's let this one pass. Please.

OK.

Only because you are blue and furry.



<But, I feel like I have a 'pompous ass card' to use at a future date.>

You caught that twinkle in my eye and though I sound stoic at times, I'm really a big sentimental push over.

I'm glad you picked up my reference to Oscar Wilde.



Very simply, your prejudices do not allow you to grasp the meaning of this phrase, especially in the vital context it was pronounced (Victorian England). Do you have any idea what he might have meant? Do you see why it was an "in your face" type of comment? :wink:



Like many theologians during the centuries... Do you have any idea why?



For the sake of full disclosure: he converted to Catholicism... Actually, he had sympathized with the Church for a long time before the Bosie affair.



Do you think he would want to be remembered that way?



And what did he believe afterwards?

I find his relationship with the faith and the Church fascinating. If you study it, you'll also find the relationship of the Church with him

Take care.

I just saw the The Passion trailer. The bloodiness is over the top, but that's Mel for ya, over the top. It's like the Passion for the pro wrestling crowd. Will a Roman soldier do a pile driver on Jesus? I wonder how many gallons of Karo syrup and food coloring they used for this movie. I like the bloodiness in Jesus of Nazareth better, more subtle, less is more in my opinion. For the amount of blood Mel hosed around, he could have made it look less pink.

From the looks of the trailer, this movie is about emphasising the graphic violence of the Passion. Kinda like what Saving Private Ryan did for war cinematography, for which it set the bar. The story line was mediocre, though. The Passion will probably be the same.