Login

04-16-2004, 04:39 PM

Quote:<hr>Well,for one, may not the big image of a double-banner image, which I consider to be a bit like spam, in fact. But that's my personal opinion.<hr> 
 
I didn't understand what you meant at first, Vortigern - but I must sincerely apologise for that! However I've checked and the custom signature box in the edit is actually "unticked" so by rights my signature shouldn't have shown here in the first place when I placed my posts. 
 
I've had the signature for a long time now ,and it's so much a part of me I don't give it a second thought. I must say, I hadn't realised you can actually turn it off within the account preferences itself in Ezboard - but after I saw your post, I asked a friend what I could do - and they explained that it can indeed be done. And that's what I've done to create this "spam free" post. Well, well, you live and learn! I don't intend to be a regular poster here in any case, but I'd hate anyone to think I simply came here to spam. I didn't. 
 
 
 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=valamber>Valamber</A> at: 4/16/04 6:45 pm

Frank Miranda · 04-16-2004, 07:40 PM

Quote:<hr>In fact, he refused to accept the findings of 'Vatican II', where the Catholic church let go of the Jewish guilt in Jesus' death. 
<hr> 
 
Actually, the Catholic Church put the official kibosh on Jewish guilt in Jesus' crucifixion back in 1570 during the Council of Trent (following Paul's admonition against blaming Jews). Vatican II simply restated that policy.

04-16-2004, 07:56 PM

Valamber, that comment of mine needed to be taken in context of a previous post on this string. I agree that there's no harm in pointing out such a thing and I don't have a problem with Titus putting it up at all! 
 
However, in a previous post, I worried aloud about the 'sophisticated' urban sneering that goes on around dinner tables regarding faith and belief. I don't think you can deny that those people who claim a deep faith are often subtly ridiculed. One famous example is Jeremy Paxman asking Tony Blair if he and George Bush 'Prayed together'. Seems innocent enough, perhaps, but the question was sly because Blair couldn't answer that he did without looking naive, or a fool. I have to say I laughed at the time, but it was a dig of exactly the sort I mentioned. 
 
It was only the gleeful tone of the 'Oh! Titus, how absolutely magnificent!' that irked me. Faith isn't cool and perhaps it never was. However, I have a deep respect for those who have it. I have met and taught with many who humbled me with their decency. Perhaps I even envy them their certainty. Those who dislike this film seem to attack it on these grounds - revealing a dislike of those who choose to base their lives on different principles to their own. They mock the faith of those who made it, rather than limiting themselves to criticism of the film itself. 
 
It is difficult, on this one subject, because the film as a work of fiction would hardly stand up. Perhaps all debate on The Passion MUST centre around the faith issues that are central to its plot. I don't know. There's only so much mileage in discussing the use of light and shadow, after all. 
 
 
As an aside, I had a look in the front pages of a few history books and there was no sign of a similar disclaimer. If it doesn't apply to history books, it's surprising to see it in the credits of this film! 
 
Best wishes, 
 
Conn

Goffredo · 04-16-2004, 08:20 PM

Well 
I think the World turned sour ever since our cromagnon ancestors started bickering amoungst themselves over who had the right faith. It is quite human and it will go on for ever as it is deeply part of human nature to need a god or to loose oneself in the supernatural. It is probably due to the inevitable suffering we go thru in life. But there is also another aspect of human nature that should be more admired and that is the brain that God or evolution gave us. And I feel that the brain functions at its best when it struggles to deal with uncertainties and doubt and NOT when it surrenders its unique abilities and embraces a faith. 
I prefer to avoid people that embrace a faith because there is no real discussion with them and when you argue back with reason they get offened and proclaim their right to be at one with their God(s), magic or whatever. But they seem to have little doubts when it comes to condeming others, with a different faith, to eternal hell, or worse, to living hell. 
 
No I do not admire who has faith.

**Robert Vermaat** · 04-16-2004, 09:48 PM

Hi Valamber, 
 
Thanks for the explanation. I must admit that's what I (too readily) assumed - that it was spam. It's not that it was ugly or something, just that it took so much space on a page. 
Thanks for setting me straight. 
 
And by all means - stay and write more! 
 
Valete, 
Valerius/Robert

Vincula · 04-16-2004, 10:16 PM

Quote:<hr>I prefer to avoid people that embrace a faith because there is no real discussion with them and when you argue back with reason they get offened and proclaim their right to be at one with their God(s), magic or whatever.<hr> 
That's not faith. That's dogma. 
Faith has nothing to do with reason -- I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, but I choose to believe that he exists, and I will not be offended when you tell me that you choose to believe that he doesn't exist.

Goffredo · 04-17-2004, 06:09 AM

Hi Vincula. 
You wrote 
"Faith has nothing to do with reason -- I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, but I choose to believe that he exists, and I will not be offended when you tell me that you choose to believe that he doesn't exist." 
 
Its nice you say you will not be offended but its the first part that scares me. An intelligent person chooses for no reason (as you say no reason is involved) to believe in something. On the other hand a reasonable person using reason might be open to criticisms that point out a fallacy in his reason. We are all unreasonable at times and one might not want to accept the criticism but in doing so the person is not being reasonable! 
Instead a BELIEVER is quite deaf and blind and continues along his line of "thought". No discussion with him is infact possible. An honest and good natured person admits that FAITH has nothing to do with reason. Others, with political agendas, are more subtle and will actually engage philosophical argumentations and abuse politeness, but they speak and write with a forked toungue. How else could it be if, as you say and as I am convinced, it all boils down to renouncing to reason?

04-17-2004, 07:37 AM

Iggulden and Vortigern - thank you so much for your posts - very much appreciated. It was wrong of me in any case, to take umbrage, Iggulden, so quickly - and I apologise. Many thanks for the kind welcome - I shall certainly be visiting again, because there is so much interesting discussion going on here - you obviously all have a deep knowledge and interest of your subjects, but I doubt I will have a great deal of "specialist" input, being very much more a "generalist". 
 
Kindest regards 
 
Val Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=valamber>Valamber</A> at: 4/17/04 9:37 am

Nathan Ross · 04-17-2004, 09:27 AM

John 18:37-38 
...Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. 
Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? 
 
Sneering at those who claim religious faith did not begin at the dinner parties of 21st century Knightsbridge - it was alive and well in 1st century Rome (and long before that). Religious debate, disagreement and doubt have a long pedigree - Cicero's 'Nature of the Gods' is an epic dispute between an Epicurean, a Stoic and an Academic, and the respective views of each are thoroughly and often rudely rubbished by the others. Of course, prior to Christianity this was essentially a philosophical matter, and Pilate's rhetorical question to Jesus has a note of the philosophical Skeptic (or perhaps Sophist) about it. 
 
To be fair, though, I don't think Titus and Antonius were 'sneering' at faith in general or Christianity in particular. Ridicule has always been a first line of defence against pomposity and vanity (see Catullus' verse attacks on Caesar!), and I think in this case the 'glee' derives from finding a chink in Mel Gibson's armour of pious authority. He did claim, after all, that in making his film he was 'directed by the Holy Spirit' - was this the sincere faith of a true Christian, or the egotism of a fantastically rich meglomaniac? 
 
Christianity thrives on adversity anyway, and 'The Passion' was intended to be provocative. Perhaps Gibson's problem (and he does seem to have a chip on his shoulder) is that Christianity has so little to fight for any more. Faith needs the faithless, and a religion of true believers needs unbelievers to give it legitimacy - without Pontius Pilate, after all, who would have heard of Jesus today?

04-17-2004, 10:30 AM

My goodness, this is getting interesting! 
 
As a general comment on the faith and reason posts, I see the point about faith being divorced from reason, and I suppose it must be, in essence. I remember reading the teleological argument for the existence of god, which (vastly simplified) goes : 
 
I found a rock in a desert and I thought, hmmm... that could be formed by wind, sun, erosion etc. Natural forces. I understand it. I wandered further and found a swiss watch. That is too complex to be formed by natural forces, therefore someone must have left it. The universe is extraordinarily complex, therefore, someone must have dropped the universe watch. 
 
The trouble with this sort of thing is that if there could ever be a definitive proof, faith and the mystery would vanish. If God, Jesus or an Angel ever turned up at my door, spent a week with my family and demonstrated their reality, I would be forced into an acceptance, much as I am with a table. It exists in such an obvious way that I can't 'believe' in it. I don't have faith in a table, because I know it's there. It would be a pretty boring world with such certainties, in my opinion. 
 
I always thought, that if there is a god, (Big man, white beard) he would not be the slightest bit interested in making automata to run about. It would be dull. However, people with free will would choose to believe or not, to turn to god or away. That would be infinitely valuable. 
 
The trouble with this is that I don't actually think there is much choice in the matter. Vincula said he chose to have faith, but I think that implies a rational logical appraisal. I don't think he could now choose not to believe in God. I couldn't, because as I said, my belief isn't based on anything logical. How could I ever reach a point where new information makes me change if I never had any information in the first place? 
 
Therefore, I think it is wrong to mock those with faith, or those without it. None of us have any choice in the matter. It's like criticising people for the colour of their eyes. You might not like the greenies, or consider them insufferable even, with their 'I'm so lucky to have green eyes' approach, but you can't have green and they can't have brown. 
 
It's easy to pour scorn on the logical failures and inconsistencies of organised religion and Christianty has its fair share, though anything humans have used for two thousand years would. 
 
As a final point, my wife used to be annoyed at my apparent callousness when watching tragic news stories. However, my comments were and are a defence against empathising with extraordinary pain. I do not want to have my emotions and my pity engaged on a daily basis. It is exhausting, selfish though that sounds. 
 
The Passion is in some ways, the same thing. It breaks through the protective veneer that is probably necessary to get on with life. That is valuable, but I couldn't watch it every week. I would have to become facetious just to survive it. 
 
Thank you Nathan and Valamber et al. I haven't been this interested in a string since finding out about Roman shield shapes. 
 
Conn

Goffredo · 04-17-2004, 01:02 PM

The complexity of the universe is something we wonder at. To renouce to study it and say it is the product of a God is to lose the opportunity to learn many exciting and interesting things. It would be like finding a strange ticking object and instead of trying to open it up to see how it ticks (the first step to some form of understanding) we propped it up on some pedestal and kneeled to pray the work of magic or sign of some god. 
 
As I see it, Swiss watch-makers are quite natural and evolution gave man the useful ability to plan and make even a watch. Ah we humans have an intense need and talent for story-telling and purpose-searching as these ways of looking at the world have proved to be extremely useful. Having a plan, a purpose, a "story" in mind, is what made our ancestors survive; we had the ability to plan, imagine scenarios, plan and make tools, all with a purpose. 
 
Humans love stories and look for purpose all the times, to the point of creating to the delight of readers and art appreciators: we are programmed to search for purpose as it is essential to survive physically and mentally. How dreadful it is to feel to be without a purpose. This nature of ours is not perfect and does not come without a risk (price). The risk we run (price we pay) is that we easily lose sense of proportions and stick to a story even when it has proved to be falacious on a practical level. The mental level is not to be underestimated and I do not underestimate its power. A neurotic person sticks obsessively to a plan (ritual). 
 
Our nature can get us into big trouble. Why are we prone to getting into trouble? Evidently our believing MUST be asymmetrical: we come to believe far easier than dis-believing. We are less flexible than what most would like to admit. We are stubborn. Think about it. Imagine those times our ancestors performed more effectively by sticking to a plan, at least initially, rather than stuck to inactivity by paranoia and be side-tracked by doubts. A healthier approach is to act according to some plan, even if the risk is that the plan be a bad one, and if necessary, and lucky(!), modify the plan as new information flows in. Notice the irony. New information is a by-product of action. No information will arrive if no action is taken. So plans, stories, are necessary as they give us a feeling of purpose and we act. For them to work this way they have to be robust and the person should not drop them to paralysis (catatonic) at the first boo. Asymmetry! 
 
Jeff 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=goffredo>goffredo</A> at: 4/17/04 3:09 pm

04-17-2004, 01:08 PM

I do not believe in a table...This could start an interesting philosophical debate. 
But first things first: I have to hereby testify that Titus darling and I are not engaged. 
But well, OK: Titus, darling, that was totally magnificent!! 
But that was not a sneer at whatever religion there is, actually. You've misinterpreted it. 
You were misguided! 
Sorry.. Can't help it, it's compulsive. 
No no, it was a big hysterical laugh at the faillible humans that didn't bother to check that legal, mandatory statement on the credits and add something like "for legal reasons we have to put this little notice at the end of the credits but well.. You know..." 
It's even funnier when you know that the statement in question is there to avoid lawsuits by persons claiming they were featured in a movie without their consent, or wrongly portrayed. 
I can imagine this lawyer showing up at the production office: "I'm Herbert Koontz, from the Koontz, Koontz and Koontz law firm and I'm here on the behalf of my clients Mr. Jesus H. Christ and Mr Pontius Pilatus.." 
So you see, the mockery was not directed towards Heavens, but towards us poor mortals. 
You know, God indeed works in mysterious ways.. 
Now let's go back to that table. 
You actually have to "believe" in it for the table to "work", in other words to be perceived by you as a table. 
A schizophren may see it --"believe" it-- as a sea monster or your mother in law, or anything else. And for him it will be as real a sea monster as it is a real table for you. Again, God works in mysterious ways. 
...And so does the human brain. 
It's all a matter of perception and I'm beginning to feel like a Jesuit frater 
As for the "mystery" of life, of the Passion, of Creation and all that, it is indeed a true mystery and a most wondrous thing and you're absolutely right in saying that we have no choice in the way perceive that mystery. Some believe, some don't and it should not be a matter of conscious choice. 
Neither should that choice be made by others in your place.. 
That said, and to go back to Christianity and Jesus' teachings, I wonder how much money "devout" Mel made with this flick. Maybe he gave it to a charity of some kind? 
Well, whatever he did with the money, he raised that money with the death of a man who once tried to kick the merchants out of the Temple, didn't he? 
The best critic I ever read of a very bad Vietnam movie called "The Green Berets" with John Wayne was "This is not a movie about Vietnam it's a movie about Beverly Hills". 
Same here: it has more to do with Beverly Hills Jesus freaks than with the real man. 
Some are into crystals, some into channelling or feng shui, some are into Jesus and I think they should quit sniffing that white stuff.. Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antoninuslucretius@romanarmytalk>Antoninus Lucretius</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://lucretius.homestead.com/files/Cesar_triste.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 4/17/04 3:10 pm

rekirts · 04-17-2004, 09:25 PM

'How could I ever reach a point where new information makes me change if I never had any information in the first place? Therefore, I think it is wrong to mock those with faith, or those without it. None of us have any choice in the matter. It's like criticising people for the colour of their eyes. You might not like the greenies, or consider them insufferable even, with their 'I'm so lucky to have green eyes' approach, but you can't have green and they can't have brown.' 
 
I agree with that, but the problem is that certain prosletyzing religious types do not. They are not content to let me be happy in my own 'misguided' beliefs. They do not accept that I can't be persuaded by them any more than they could be persuaded by me--because they are convinced of their own rightness. I have certain feelings about spiritual things, but I am not invested in being right and have no desire to 'bring others into the fold.' I can give these people my respect, but I won't get the same back. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
"I am an admirer of the ancients,but not like some people so as to despise the talent of our own times." Pliny the Younger

04-17-2004, 11:18 PM

I know what you mean Rekirts, especially after a memorable summer years ago when the Mormons decided I was a possible convert. I only asked a question. It was very, very difficult to get them to stop. I was more impressed by their teeth than anything else. 
 
However, as I was reading your post, I realised I'd fogotten converts. Those who seek to convert are occasionally successful, so all that business of the green eyed people not becoming brown, was only partly true. Unfortunately, these born-again conversions rather justify all the knocking on doors and public work that so irritates those who don't want it. We may be stuck with them. 
 
I keep forgetting things like this, because in no small facet of my life am I a 'floating voter'. Like most of the people on this site and certainly on this string, I have an opinion on everything and am highly resistent to road-to-Damascus changes. As I write that, it doesn't seem a good thing, but hell, you can't stay open to everything forever. Sooner or later you have to say, 'I appreciate your opinion and that you see it as valid, but devil-worship is still a wasted Wednesday afternoon.' 
 
Antoninus, I'm very glad you replied, especially so wittily. It was a pleasure. I thought it was possibly Jesuitical to argue that a table has to be believed in. I think the process of mentally recognising an object is different to faith, though I think I see what you meant. 
 
I did notice, in the film, that Jesus sat on his table, so maybe he too wasn't absolutely certain it was one. Sometimes we all have to test, perhaps. 
 
 
As a final point - I'm meant to be working, not getting caught up in this! - Goffredo, believing the universe watch implies a creator in no way leads to the end of study. If the watch is sufficiently complex, we curious humans will want to study it all the more to understand it. In fact, in a circular argument, you could say that because God made a complex universe with us in it, our search for knowledge is not only 'approved' but actually becomes part of the relationships that form the watch and prove the god. We prove the complexity by being interested enough in it to look. 
 
 
Now look what you've done. My brain has overheated looking for the flaw in that last bit. 
 
Conn

rekirts · 04-17-2004, 11:49 PM

Well, you actually can change your eye colour with tinted contact lenses. 
 
Anyway I decided not to go see The Passion because I figured it would annoy me. The way some of my Christian acquaintances talk about it makes it sound like a revival meeting or something--working people into a frenzy of emotion. Perhaps I will rent the DVD someday just to be fair. 
 
"I am an admirer of the ancients,but not like some people so as to despise the talent of our own times." Pliny the Younger

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	"Spear of Christ" on History Channel (US)	A_Volpe	8	2,284	01-02-2007, 01:56 PM Last Post: MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS