I’m sorry if this question sounds harsh, but there’s no other way to phrase it: What the hëll is wrong with the bulk of Christians in this country that if Jesus is depicted as loving and accepting, that portrayal is stoned into oblivion, but if he’s depicted as being beaten and tortured to death, THAT they come flocking to watch by the busload?
“The Book of Daniel” was an incredibly good program that was quick-fried by people who, for the most part, hadn’t seen it or refused to see it. Critics and commentators loved demonizing concepts such as that the titular minister “popped pills” without bothering to mention it wasn’t speed or uppers or downers but pain killers…an addiction he was wrestling with rather than being glorified. Or that his daughter “dealt drugs,” without bothering to mention that it was a stupid mistake she was busted for in the first five minutes of the show, and she quickly gave it up, and that she was doing it to raise money to publish her own manga comic since she was really an artist. Nor did anyone ever bring up the many scenes where the family was shown as a loving, caring group who never hesitated to display that love for one another.
But what really drew fire was the concept of Jesus as a patient sounding board for the frustrated Daniel. If they’d only bothered to actually WATCH the program, rather than allow blowhards to make up their minds for them, they’d have seen a depiction of their savior that’s probably the most heart warming and loving version of divinity since George Burns explained, “I didn’t create the universe in six days. Actually, I thought about it for five days and did it in one. I work best under pressure. But my days aren’t the same as yours, y’know. When I got up this morning, Sigmund Freud was in medical school.”
Sample the triumphant words of Donald Wildmon: “This shows the average American that he doesn’t have to simply sit back and take the trash being offered on TV, but he can get involved and fight back with his pocketbook.”
No. What it shows is that the average American is intolerant. So much so that he couldn’t JUST make the decision to try a program for himself and, if he didn’t like it, change the channel or even, God forbid, turn off the TV and read a book. No, the average American had to do everything possible to make sure that OTHER average Americans couldn’t judge for THEMselves by organizing and driving a series off the air. Of course, what most burned their biscuits was Jesus being depicted as being tolerant of sinners or even (gasp) gays. If Jesus had been shown as condemning all aspects of sin and assuring Daniel that his gay son was doomed to hëll, THAT they might well have supported.
But for Jesus to display tolerance of sinners…for Wildmon to display tolerance of other Americans rather than organize to drive quality shows off the air? Can’t have that, no, no. Because…well, because why, exactly? Aren’t Christians supposed to be charitable, tolerant, understanding? I was pretty much sure that was part of the teachings.
What is it about human beings that we constantly create codes of conduct for ourselves with lofty ideals–tolerance, love thy neighbor, judge not lest ye be judged, free expression–and then not only fail to live up to them, but TAKE PRIDE in that failure? It’s an interesting question, I think. Too bad shows such as “The Book of Daniel,” where such questions might be explored, are being canned.
PAD
• 
“When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others.”
This is an actual line out of the Bible? And if so, from which version?
As I don’t have cable I dod not see the show. So this comment is totally off topic. I think Iowa Jim is the anti-Peter David, and if we were willing to live with out Peters works we could build a huge containment generator and place Peter and Jim into it. I believe that that once this has been done upon collideing the two would simply destroy each other creating enough energy to power the earth for generations to come! Or destroy the planet….
JAC
“The George Burns quote Peter used was from the movie “Oh God.” (like 1977 or so, with John Denver) If you ever get the chance, it’s a real tickle.”
It really is a wonderful film (a sequel is supposedly in production for this year featuring Ellen DeGeneres in the George Burns role.)
My favorite moment is when God is answering an assortment of questions posed by the greatest theological minds while John Denver’s character is taking down the replies. And one of the exchanges is:
DENVER: “What is the true meaning of life?”
GOD: Life is like a cup of tea. (pause, then reacting to Denver’s expression) Nah. I better not go for laughs.
PAD
Hey, PAD reading these right now. Hi PAD!
JAC
I think the show’s problem was, it cut out two major audiences. First off, it eliminated anyone who isn’t interested in a program involving Christian religion (including me). Second, it eliminated anyone who was interested in a program involving the Christian religion, but wanted a more traditional take.
I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with a non-traditional take, but the reality is that’s just not what a large segment of the Christian audience wants, and everyone knows that. So, the show basically squeezed itself out of existence.
In the end, it came down to ratings; if the ratings had been strong, nobody would have cared what the protesters said.
(a sequel is supposedly in production for this year featuring Ellen DeGeneres in the George Burns role.)
When “Oh, God” first came out, I remember some mild protest about George Burns “daring” to play God. I didn’t really understand it, since I had seen the movie and thought he played the part well.
Now, I hear this and can’t help but think: How can Ellen DeGeneres dare to replace George Burns?
I guess there’s a lesson in there somewhere……
He’s referring to Battle Royale, a violent, satirical, and quite excellent Japanese film from a couple years back. Probably won’t ever get a release in this country.
Featuring Beat Takashi, perhaps better known on this side of the pond as Vic Romano on Spike TV’s “Most Extreme Elimination Challenge”.
If by “this country” you mean the US, it’s been availible for some time, as have the manga and a book version.
True, but there almost certainly will not be a theatrical release like RAN or ZATOICHI and there still hasn’t been a premium cable broadcast or a US DVD release.
And for the record, the manga is absolutely appalling. No, really. It’s utterly horrific.
I can’t wait for the next one to come out. 🙂
it thrust it views upon the viewer in a way they could not get past, so they gave up on it and turned it off
“If one has the option to change the channel or turn the TV off, nothing is forced or thrust upon the viewer.”
Fine. It *presented* it’s views…etc, etc.
“”When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others.”
This is an actual line out of the Bible? And if so, from which version?”
Book of Mathew, Chapter 6 verse 2. Here’s a link to an online version –
http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Matthew+6&book_id=9&version1=31
“Sheep” who condemn people or things sight unseen, based on the opinion of someone whose view they respect, come in every political stripe and religious/non-religious affiliation. It’s a shame, but it is, I’m afraid, reality.
1I half to admit, I never watched the show. Not because of any prejudice, but because I didn’t have time. However, from what I gather, as a lapsed Christan myself I think most Christans don’t want a loving forgiving Jesus.
I take that back: THEY WANT JESUS TOO FORGIVE THEIR SCREWUPS. But on the flip side, they want Jesus to bodyslam everyone else for their short comings.
Basically, the religious right are Gou’ald and thier followers want to be Ja’Fa
So let’s take the moral high ground and forgive those who trespass against us. If they try to tell us what to do with our lives, let’s not vote for them.
“As I don’t have cable I dod not see the show. “
Uh James, it was on NBC, a major network, not a cable channel. Good show, but awful time slot
I don’t know if anyone’s posted this yet…
If anyone is interested in seeing the unaired episodes of the show, NBC is playing them on their website.
This is an actual line out of the Bible? And if so, from which version?
My copy of the Bible, which has this line, is “revised standard version, second edition”. as for the posting above, I copied & pasted it from http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew6.htm. (I wasn’t about to type all that manually)
Book of Mathew, Chapter 6 verse 2. Here’s a link to an online version
Well, I must say, that line alone makes me chalk up another point for the Arguments Against Religious Texts.
Too bad many Christians are just as hypocritical as that line says others are.
Here’s a great comparative resource of eight different Biblical translations. This is specifically for the verse above:
http://bible.cc/matthew/6-2.htm
And frankly, based upon the views you’ve espoused here, if they’d had a character in “The Book of Daniel” who was portrayed exactly as you portray yourself here, people would have been complaining about him.
And which views would those be? I find it interesting that you lately have made this personal about me.
Let’s step back for a moment and look at this from the opposite side and deal with the actual show by using an example of an alternative. Imagine a show called “A Letter from Donna” had just been launched.
Donna, the lead character, struggles with an eating disorder. But she was abused as a kid, so we (genuinely) feel some sympathy for her struggle.
Her husband actually cares for her. He has forgiven her affair with a neighbor, and has done everything he could to win her heart. Which just makes her feel more guilty because she knows she is not worthy of his love.
Her son has studied the evidence and is convinced that evolution is absurd, that the universe itself screams it was inteligently designed. He is now battling the school board to get ID taught in the high school.
Donna’s brother is an ex-gay. Not one who secretly still wishes he was gay, but one who has actually completely changed, is now happily married, and has 3 kids. He leads a ministry that shows love to homosexuals, accepting them where they are while offering an alternative to those who wish to become heterosexual.
Oh, and I forgot. She is the president of a local chapter of NOW, wanting to further abortion rights, but her daughter has become a member of an abortion alternative group. They don’t shoot abortion doctors or blow up clinics. They just help women who choose not to have an abortion to get the health care they need to have a healthy baby, and teach them how to raise the child.
Imagine that show aired for 3 weeks and had abysmal ratings. You would laugh your head off if I complained it was a conspiracy in Hollywood to keep any decent, “God fearing” programs off of the air.
Yes, I only watched 15 minutes. But I did my research. Today you can read full synopsis of plots online. No, it is not the same as seeing it, but you can get a good idea of some major plot lines in the show if it is a decent summary. Based on what I saw and what I read (from multiple sources), the Book of Daniel was as stacked for a “left wing” agenda as my imaginary show would be stacked for a “right wing” agenda. (
The reality is, this show was on life support when it started. NBC didn’t order a full slate, they put in in a horrible time slot, and even referred to it in ways that suggested it was a limited series. It would have taken a ratings explosion to have kept this show on the air.
This had nothing to do with how Jesus’ was portrayed. This had everything to do with an agenda. There are shows that have an agenda and pull it off well. More power to them. But this one was a failure. Giving it more time would not have changed a thing.
Iowa Jim
“As I don’t have cable I dod not see the show. “
Uh James, it was on NBC, a major network, not a cable channel. Good show, but awful time slot
Actually bladestar, my name is Jeff. Where I live we are pretty much strangled by cox cable. The antenna reception sucks so I don’t bother with it. I therefore kind of lump the two together when speaking about it as “cable” Sorry for being unclear. Eitherway I pretty much don’t see things till they are on dvd.
JAC
As mentioned earlier, the lead actor in “The End of the Spear” is gay. He is also an outspoken gay activist. A local “religious” television station is refusing to run the ads for TEotS. Let’s take this to its logical end.
All you so-called “Christians” must now give away all your Earthly possessions, take off all your clothes, and walk naked into the forest (or corn field if yoy live in Iowa).
Why? Because the actor is gay, you shouldn’t see the movie.
I saw “End of the Spear.” It was a great movie. I highly recommend it.
I did know Chad Allen was openly gay before I saw it. And I am a “so called” Christian. Didn’t bother me in the least. I have highly recommended that others see this film.
Yes, a few Christians are making this an issue, but not most.
Truth be told, PAD should actually be trumpeting this movie. It’s central message is that the cycle of violence only leads to more violence. It is only when you stop that cycle that the killing ends. And yet this movie is being promoted my many of the same Christians who support Bush and the war in Iraq. If PAD is looking for irony, can’t get much better than that.
Iowa Jim
Aahhh… Battle Royale. Haven’t seen the movie or read the manga yet, and honestly don’t know if I will (or can). The book was wonderful, though. A perfect example of something that is intriguing, and a wonderful read, but not “enjoyable,” per se. Like Schindler’s List. I think EVERYBODY should have to see that movie at least once.
That being said, I have NO interest whatsoever in seein Mel Gibson’s Passion. From everything I’ve heard and read, it focuses entirely on the LEAST important part of Jesus’ story. But that’s just me…
-Rex Hondo-
I’d just like to touch upon a point raised earlier, one which seems to be ignored by many simply because it seems so self-obvious – yet leaves one Fundie claim unchallenged for those who haven’t actually read the Christian Bible for themselves.
Yes, the Pentateuch (particularly the Book of Leviticus) does condemn homosexual behavior. It also condemns indoor plumbing (putting the latrine too close to the encampment), seafood, pork, and building a house without a parapet around the edge of the roof. Leviticus itself particularly condemns the abomination of cooking a baby goat in its own mother’s milk – a sin mentioned three times, where gáÿ šëx only got two nods. (I’m not sure why that’s a sin, but there must have been a lot of it going on back then…)
Now, if you want to build your bathroom outside your house, boycott cheeseburgers, and make sure your roof has a low wall around its edge, maybe I’ll listen to you condemn homosexuals. Until then, maybe we should listen to the words of Christ Himself, who spoke far more eloquently on the topic of being judgmental of others’ behavior than on being gay. (“The beam in your own eye” strike any chords out there?)
Posted by Den at January 27, 2006 11:22 AM
I have to admit being pertubed myself at the general consensus lately that it’s perfectly appropriate to use whatever liberal bias one may have and present it as Christ’s viewpoint in order to validate it.
I guess it’s only okay to use whatever conservative bias one may have and present it as Christ’s viewpoint order to validate it.
I never said that. I just said liberals shouldn’t do that either.
I would expect Peter to be angry — not just incensed by the comments, but that the show used his name and likeness to sell them with little concern of his actual perspective.
Not a valid comparison at all. You’re talking about using PAD’s personal name and likeness to deny the holocast vs. a family that happened to be headed by an Episcopal Priest. Portraying PAD by name as a holocast denier is a pretty solid case of libel whereas, as far as I could tell, the show never claimed to be representative of any particular real individual or family. It was a show about one family’s turmoil but because the family happens to be a very religious one, showing them as having some serious problems is somehow verbotin.
But that’s not my argument. I never claimed (or have) a problem of using a fictional character, religiously inclined or not, as a character in a story. I said that I have a problem with people using actual religious icons in stories merely to sell their point.
I think of myself as a liberal at heart – I just have a problem with liberals using right-wight tactics. If someone created a revisionist story featuring Hitler, and showed him as conflicted and repentant at the end of his life, I wouldn’t disagree with the message, but I would disagree with the accuracy of the portrayal.
The Biblical record, whether you agree with it or not, says that God disapproves of homosexuality. Since most people think of Christ as liberal, they construe that to mean Christ is against this thinking, so they impose their views onto Christ. Conservatives have used this tactic, too, and it’s deplorable no matter who the offending party is.
Good stories should have a point of view. It helps a story be relevant, and promotes discussion. But using Christ as a mouthpiece doesn’t stimulate discussion — it squelches it, by implying that someone who is considered by many to be the ultimate arbitrator of standards has come down from on high to dictate social policy.
Again, superimposing one’s viewpoint over anyone else’s is censorship, and the producers of The Book of Daniel doing that to Christ is no different than Wildmon bullying the networks to get the show off the air. I condemn both. All I did was try to present that the producers of this show are guilty ,too.
Also while the approach of the Christian right on this matter is not acceptable, their outrage was a completely forseeable occurance. This same show could have been made if Christ wasn’t in it, and it may have had the chance to address a lot of issues, but now won’t because it went too sensationalist.
Now, admitting, the show was over the top, as few families have that much drama going on all at once, but that’s television.
A more valid comparison is the way some Jewish groups tried to get theaters to stop showing the Passion, which I don’t agree with either.
If you want shows to display human foibles and characters of clay, I’m all for it. But I think it’s very dangerous to confuse patience or “Christian Tolerance” with actual endorsement or a complete lack of standards.
Which I didn’t get from the little of the show I watched. I saw a man who had standards and was struggling to balance those standards with his love for his family.
But I suppose if he had simply tossed his gay son and his pot dealing daughter out into the street, Wildmon would have cheered.
I seem to recall reading about some guy who, 2000 years ago, sat down and ate with the sinners and tried to use love to pursuade them to change their ways. Now, what was his name again?
Just conjecture on my part (and not written sarcastically, honest), but I think a lot of people may have been afraid that any overly-tolerant presentation of Christ would have overemphasized the “love,” and not the “change their ways” part.
I agree with you, Den. You can’t have the latter without the former. But a lot of people, again, from both the left and right, don’t like the idea of the latter at all.
REPOSTED FOR QUOTE ACCURACY
Posted by Den at January 27, 2006 11:22 AM
I have to admit being pertubed myself at the general consensus lately that it’s perfectly appropriate to use whatever liberal bias one may have and present it as Christ’s viewpoint in order to validate it.
I guess it’s only okay to use whatever conservative bias one may have and present it as Christ’s viewpoint order to validate it.
I never said that. I just said liberals shouldn’t do that either.
I would expect Peter to be angry — not just incensed by the comments, but that the show used his name and likeness to sell them with little concern of his actual perspective.
Not a valid comparison at all. You’re talking about using PAD’s personal name and likeness to deny the holocast vs. a family that happened to be headed by an Episcopal Priest. Portraying PAD by name as a holocast denier is a pretty solid case of libel whereas, as far as I could tell, the show never claimed to be representative of any particular real individual or family. It was a show about one family’s turmoil but because the family happens to be a very religious one, showing them as having some serious problems is somehow verbotin.
But that’s not my argument. I never claimed (or have) a problem of using a fictional character, religiously inclined or not, as a character in a story. I said that I have a problem with people using actual religious icons in stories merely to sell their point.
I think of myself as a liberal at heart – I just have a problem with liberals using right-wight tactics. If someone created a revisionist story featuring Hitler, and showed him as conflicted and repentant at the end of his life, I wouldn’t disagree with the message, but I would disagree with the accuracy of the portrayal.
The Biblical record, whether you agree with it or not, says that God disapproves of homosexuality. Since most people think of Christ as liberal, they construe that to mean Christ is against this thinking, so they impose their views onto Christ. Conservatives have used this tactic, too, and it’s deplorable no matter who the offending party is.
Good stories should have a point of view. It helps a story be relevant, and promotes discussion. But using Christ as a mouthpiece doesn’t stimulate discussion — it squelches it, by implying that someone who is considered by many to be the ultimate arbitrator of standards has come down from on high to dictate social policy.
Again, superimposing one’s viewpoint over anyone else’s is censorship, and the producers of The Book of Daniel doing that to Christ is no different than Wildmon bullying the networks to get the show off the air. I condemn both. All I did was try to present that the producers of this show are guilty ,too.
Also while the approach of the Christian right on this matter is not acceptable, their outrage was a completely forseeable occurance. This same show could have been made if Christ wasn’t in it, and it may have had the chance to address a lot of issues, but now won’t because it went too sensationalist.
I seem to recall reading about some guy who, 2000 years ago, sat down and ate with the sinners and tried to use love to pursuade them to change their ways. Now, what was his name again?
Just conjecture on my part (and not written sarcastically, honest), but I think a lot of people may have been afraid that any overly-tolerant presentation of Christ would have overemphasized the “love,” and not the “change their ways” part.
I agree with you, Den. You can’t have the latter without the former. But a lot of people, again, from both the left and right, don’t like the idea of the latter at all.
Not having seen the show or even heard of it up to this point, I don’t really feel qualified to touch on the main point — but since “Brokeback Mountain” was mentioned earlier, I thought I’d pass along the following.
Earlier today, I thought of what (IMO) would be the title of one of the worst slash fanfic stories ever made. (Or best. I still can’t decide.)
“Brokeback Mount Doom.”
Maybe a hundred people have already thought of this. But it just hit me today, and I figured a decent portion of the populace here is just warped enough to enjoy the idea. (Yeah, Bill, I’m talkin’ to you here.) 🙂
TWL
“The Biblical record, whether you agree with it or not, says that God disapproves of homosexuality.”
I’m sorry, but speaking as a lifelong Christian, this is simply bunk — or certainly not supported in the way that most conservatives claim. First let’s look where it’s conspicuously NOT mentioned…
• Jesus, the son of God, never discusses homosexuality.
• The Ten Commandments, the word of God handed down from on-high, don’t discuss homosexuality. (They DO address adultery, however, so it’s not like sexual sin is excluded entirely.)
Homosexuality IS mentioned, in the main, only twice…
• Once by Paul. But if you read the text, oddly enough, he’s not too keen on marriage either. (Paul essentially believed that the end of the world was coming sooner rather than later, and encouraged people to first and foremost seek a life of focusing on God in preparation for this, only resorting to marriage as a second option.)
• Once in the societal rules chiefly in Leviticus (and some in Exodus and Deuteronomy). Yet those detail a society as it existed quite some time ago. Thus…
If you’re going to adhere to the Leviticus notion that homosexuality is bad, then you’d better also adhere to the notion (say) that women have utterly no rights whatsoever and are essentially deemed property. Oh, and that adultering women should be stoned to death. Not the adultering men, of course, good Heavens no. Whether you like it or not, *such features were part of that society*.
So, Sir. If you’re utterly convinced that the Bible is against homosexuality, are you also for the notion of stoning adultering women, and that women shouldn’t have little luxuries like voting rights? Because I’m sorry, it is abject nonsense to support the “gay is bad” notion without accepting the rest of it.
And again, I say that as a lifelong Christian.
I felt the need to remove any ambiguity about my last post by saying that I am FULLY in favor of women’s rights, and merely wished to point out that anyone who tells you “God disproves of homosexuality” is usually highlighting some Bible verses while willfully ignoring others, not bothering to apply much context to the text and generally tossing Christ’s message of love, tolerance and compassion out the window.
Along those lines, I apologize — on behalf of tolerant Christians around the world — for instances where Christ’s message of love gets perverted into one of intolerance.
Paul also said that women should be silent in church and if any of the big words the priest uses confuses them, they’re supposed wait until they get home and ask their husbands to explain it to them.
And if you cannot connect with a film, it may not necessary mean it is a bad film objectively speaking. It may just mean you’re not inclined to like the subject matter or delivery.
In my case, it was definitely the delivery. I didn’t like the movie, okay? Maybe that makes me a heathen in some people’s minds, but that’s just tough titties for them.
But I don’t think it’s entirely valid to criticize the film for only showing us some parts of the Jesus Story.
Why? I think it’s perfectly valid to criticize something for whatever reason it didn’t appeal to you. I realize Gibson was trying to make a point, but I think the importance of why people followed Jesus was completely lost in the movie. Imagine showing this movie to somebody who knew nothing about Christianity or anything about Jesus’ ministry. They would come away with this: A guy claimed to be the son of God, some people were offended by that, so they had him tortured to death. Then, we see a five second shot of him walking out of his tomb as an afterthought. Why is any of this important? The movie doesn’t answer any of these questions. And yes, I realize he was preaching to the choir and not seeking convests.
Den, I thought about this for a while. I don’t know about the other stations but Fox (Which is probably the one I’d be watching during those increasingly infrequent times I look for news on TV) often has left of center religious folks on. Usually it’s over some specific issue–the death penalty in particular. There’s that Nun that they made the movie about…
All I can say is that I’ve never seen her on Fox News or any other channel.
And that’s the sad thing. I don’t know her name. But I know Fred Phelps. And Fred Phelps doesn’t deserve to have his name known. In a just universe he would be a total nonentity. It’s not that he’s a leader, it’s not that he has a large following (His “church” is just his family, at least the ones who haven’t fled and are now getting extensive therapy to undo the damage of a life spent with this hateful nut). But we know him, don’t we, and to Fred that’s all that matters. Sad on a few levels, not the least of which is that we are all encouraging him to continue by paying him heed.
And that’s exactly my point. Fred Phelps and his family are media whørëš, but they and other extremists are out there, putting their message and their interpretation of religion in the public forum for all to see.
So, on one side, we have Wildmon, Phelps, Robertson, Dobson, Falwell, and probably a dozen more. On the other side, we have some nun who nobody remembers her name.
Yep, that’s “fair and balanced.”
The religious has become very media savy and they’re out there pushing their message. The fault of the religious left and center is that they’ve retreated, allowing the right to claim a monopoly on God and faith.
If the media thinks that Dobson, Robertson, and Wildmon speak for all Christians, it’s because they are the only ones out there who are speaking to the media.
And that brings us back to my original point.
I guess it’s only okay to use whatever conservative bias one may have and present it as Christ’s viewpoint order to validate it.
I never said that. I just said liberals shouldn’t do that either.
At the risk of sounding like a fourth grader after a playgrade fight, they did it first.
Iowa Jim: I find it interesting that you lately have made this personal about me
Luigi Novi: An interesting accusation, given that after he stated an opinion, you accused him of “whining” (wording that sounds at least somewhat personal), and even applied a Straw Man argument by referring to things that he had never said.
He’s referring to Battle Royale, a violent, satirical, and quite excellent Japanese film from a couple years back. Probably won’t ever get a release in this country.
I just want to say that, since the reference was originally directed at me, I never saw Battle Royale and really didn’t get the reference when Bill made it. I’m not sure if he was implying that I should condemn that movie because I thought the gore in the Passion was excessive, but unlike some people, I don’t criticize things that I haven’t seen first hand.
“At the risk of sounding like a fourth grader after a playgrade fight, they did it first.”
Ladies and Gentlemen! Your modern Democratic party policy…
Dark Wesley –
Along those lines, I apologize — on behalf of tolerant Christians around the world — for instances where Christ’s message of love gets perverted into one of intolerance.
Apology accepted. Now, get out there and drown out the Robertons and Falwells of the world, and we’ll all be better off. 🙂
Bill Handy –
Ladies and Gentlemen! Your modern Democratic party policy…
But IOKIARDI.
“At the risk of sounding like a fourth grader after a playgrade fight, they did it first.”
Ladies and Gentlemen! Your modern Democratic party policy…
Yeah, and stupid, too. Copycats rarely work as well as the originals.
I am Christian, almost watched because I was not suppose to, but at the end of the day it did not interest me because it seemed like bad TV. I think the “controversy” was silly. I wish my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ would spen the money and energy they do on stupidity such as this on helping the needy and hurting people in the world. Alas, they would rather blindly follow “professed” Christian politicians than a carpenter from Jerusalem.
David Serchay wrote:
“If by “this country” you mean the US, it’s been availible for some time, as have the manga and a book version.”
I meant theatrical release. Sorry, should have been more clear.
“Brokeback Mount Doom.”
Well, there were those looks Frodo and Sam exchanged on the mountain… 🙂
Dark Wesley –
Along those lines, I apologize — on behalf of tolerant Christians around the world — for instances where Christ’s message of love gets perverted into one of intolerance.
Apology accepted. Now, get out there and drown out the Robertons and Falwells of the world, and we’ll all be better off. 🙂
I can’t afford to begin to match the Falwells and Robertsons – the idea of cheating some old lady out of her pension check in order to finance my television empire sickens me. >shrug
Sorry to have come into this so late, but I just got done working 34 hours in the last two days, and I have to address something Iowa Jim said above, about only watching the show for 15 minutes and then later, doing “research.” What, pray tell, kind of research? Seems to me, and I might have a SLIGHT advantage here considering I work in TV and am working on two screenplays, that the appropriate kind of research as to whether or not a show is utter crap is to, you know, watch it.
This whole thing reminds me of the Archbishop episode of The Black Adder. Not that the situation in the episode has anything to do with the Book of Daniel, but the way that those with religious influence will use it to save their own necks more often than not.
Something that’s always bothered me about organized religion–there’s all these religions out there, and they all claim to be the TRUTH. Yeah. All different. Heck, even two members of the SAME religion will disagree over things because everything you deal with is colored by your own experiences. (Ask me sometime why I think the Prodigal Son story is a load of dingo’s kidneys) Everyone follows their own religion. Their own, unique religion. And I really doubt that Heaven is segregated into denominations….
I just realized, this is kind of like the people on Amazon.com slamming George Carlin’s “When Will Jesus Bring The Pork Chops” as ‘anti-Christian filth’. Only a few admitted they hadn’t actually read it, and they mostly said the same thing. What I thought was funny was the people saying they’d pray for George, saying it as if it were some kind of punishment.
As a side note, one of the creators of The Book of Daniel (I think it was creator, might’ve been writer) was a co-creator of Titus.
Jeeze, I’ve been without the internet all weekend. My ISP stopped peeing IS. What’d I miss?
*Cough* *Cough* *Original Sin* *cough*
Oh, well, sure, GOD can curse future generations. He’s God! He can do anything (except make a rock he can’t lift). But I don’t think that people can do that and have it actually apply.
He’s referring to Battle Royale, a violent, satirical, and quite excellent Japanese film from a couple years back. Probably won’t ever get a release in this country
Not after Columbine, that’s for sure. It’s one of my top 10 favorite movies of all time.
I think Iowa Jim is the anti-Peter David, and if we were willing to live with out Peters works we could build a huge containment generator and place Peter and Jim into it.
Hey that sounds like the plot of a really lousy episode of Star Trek…
Featuring Beat Takashi, perhaps better known on this side of the pond as Vic Romano on Spike TV’s “Most Extreme Elimination Challenge”.
An amazing guy. Check out HANA BI and SONATINE. He was also terrific in the recent ZATOICHI movie.
The manga is THAT horrific? Hey, thanks for the tip, Sasha!
Aahhh… Battle Royale. Haven’t seen the movie or read the manga yet, and honestly don’t know if I will (or can).
You have to go on the grey market–it’s easily available online or at conventions.
I should add that although it is the violent content taht gives the movie it’s notoriaty, it is the excellent characterization that makes the movie worth seeing. Producers of crap Hollywood horror movies should take a lesson from this film; it IS possible to make us care whether or not a character dies.
Maybe a hundred people have already thought of this. But it just hit me today, and I figured a decent portion of the populace here is just warped enough to enjoy the idea. (Yeah, Bill, I’m talkin’ to you here.) 🙂
Well, I’m married to a woman who writes Starsky & Hutch slash fiction so yeah, I found that one pretty funny.
If the media thinks that Dobson, Robertson, and Wildmon speak for all Christians, it’s because they are the only ones out there who are speaking to the media.
And that brings us back to my original point.
But I still think it’s not accurate. I grant that we can’t remember their names but I’ve seen LOTS of moderate religious folks on TV. If my ISP starts working at home I could try to get some kind of number. You say you haven’t seen them and I’m sure you are correct. But they are there.
And not all of the others are actually on TV that much. Phelps is more of a newspaper creation; I can’t say that I’ve EVER seen the guy on the tube. Actually, I have no idea what he looks or sounds like.
I never saw Battle Royale and really didn’t get the reference when Bill made it. I’m not sure if he was implying that I should condemn that movie because I thought the gore in the Passion was excessive, but unlike some people, I don’t criticize things that I haven’t seen first hand.
Oh no, I don’t think ANYONE should condemn BATTLE ROYALE. I love that movie. I was more or less just making a joke about how people who acted like THE PASSION was some kind of trailblazer in the depiction of violence have no idea what’s out there (DEAD/ALIVE would probably make their heads explode all Scanners-like).
I just realized, this is kind of like the people on Amazon.com slamming George Carlin’s “When Will Jesus Bring The Pork Chops” as ‘anti-Christian filth’.
The political partisans, right and left, are ruining Amazon.coms reviews function. It’s just become a big flamefest. Some websites are even bragging about how well they have poisoned the rating of books by authors they don’t like. Shameful.
Just to clarify, I’ve had no problem finding the Battle Royale manga, and I loved the book, I don’t know if the actual graphic depiction of the story is something that I can bring myself to read, as deeply as I as affected by the book. Plus, I’m just afraid it’d be a dissappointment as well… 😛
On another previous subject, what I have witnessed of the rare occasions left-of-center religious types DO actually make it onto news shows, the show seems to go out of its way to pick the LEAST telegenic fruitcake they can find.
Oh, and I loved “When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?” That’s why I don’t read Amazon reviews any more…
-Rex Hondo-
But I still think it’s not accurate. I grant that we can’t remember their names but I’ve seen LOTS of moderate religious folks on TV. If my ISP starts working at home I could try to get some kind of number. You say you haven’t seen them and I’m sure you are correct. But they are there.
But the fact that just about everyone can rattle off half a dozen rightwing preachers/media whørëš, but can’t remember a single moderate to liberal religious figure off the top of their heads proves that they have a lot of catching up to do.
And not all of the others are actually on TV that much. Phelps is more of a newspaper creation; I can’t say that I’ve EVER seen the guy on the tube. Actually, I have no idea what he looks or sounds like.
Phelps is only the exception. All of the other wingnut preachers are very much creations of the bøøb tube. Robertson has his permanent TV show while others like Falwell and Dobson are permanent fixtures on the punditry circuit. And even if he doesn’t give TV interviews, his group/family still gets plenty of TV time whenever they show up at a funeral with their “God hates fágš” signs.
And even though he tends to focus his activities on live protests, newspaper interviews, and the internet, one of his daughters and her kids were making the punditry circuit a year or so ago to promote their message of hate.
Posted by Dark Wesley at January 28, 2006 09:18 PM
“The Biblical record, whether you agree with it or not, says that God disapproves of homosexuality.”
I’m sorry, but speaking as a lifelong Christian, this is simply bunk — or certainly not supported in the way that most conservatives claim. First let’s look where it’s conspicuously NOT mentioned…
• Jesus, the son of God, never discusses homosexuality.
• The Ten Commandments, the word of God handed down from on-high, don’t discuss homosexuality. (They DO address adultery, however, so it’s not like sexual sin is excluded entirely.)
So homosexuality isn’t listed in the top ten — but it IS listed in the Mosaic law, isn’t it?
For example, Leviticus 20:13
Homosexuality IS mentioned, in the main, only twice…
• Once by Paul. But if you read the text, oddly enough, he’s not too keen on marriage either. (Paul essentially believed that the end of the world was coming sooner rather than later, and encouraged people to first and foremost seek a life of focusing on God in preparation for this, only resorting to marriage as a second option.)
Yes, this portion is in 1 Corinthians Chapter 7. Nothing to do with the topic at hand. And, of course, he ENCOURAGED (not imposed) people to consider single life. His wording in Romans 1:24-27 or 1Corinthians 6:9-11 is a lot stronger when speaking of many other behaviors, including the topic that IS on hand.
• Once in the societal rules chiefly in Leviticus (and some in Exodus and Deuteronomy). Yet those detail a society as it existed quite some time ago. Thus…
So, ultimately, what’s your point? Except for when it’s mentioned, homosexuality isn’t mentioned? That’s like saying that our law doesn’t condemn murder because the murder laws that ARE written aren’t in the traffic code.
You may be right, but your argument itself isn’t sound.
Besides, there’s lot of things that are covered in the Bible. Repeating every single thing in every single chapter is a little redundant, isn’t it? Is your argument that a law has to be written a certain number of times before we are to presume the lawmaker MEANS it? Isn’t just one time enough?
After all, the Bible condemns adultery. It also suggests that, for the sake of cleanliness, it’s not a good idea to defecate inside the camp — a few thousand years before microbiology suggested the same thing. We haven’t discarded all laws that apparently only have social significance when our current social morals change, have we?
I don’t disagree in that some of the laws, especially in the Mosaic times, are for a very specific society. I’m just not comfortable in deciding which ones ARE disposable, especially when they’re repeatedin the New Testament (which, according to Paul, supercedes the Mosaic law (see the book of Hebrews), which is probably why stonings weren’t in vogue in the early Christian era).
In any event, the Bible doesn’t seem to have been updated by anyone who would be universally recognized as having the authority to do so. I’m more uncomfortable with the idea that so many people ARE comfortable with rewriting God’s message as they feel appropriate.
Again (as I apparently have to keep saying over and over, because a lot of you just refuse to get it) — I’M NOT CONDEMNING HOMOSEXUALITY — I’m just saying that the Bible IS, no matter what your personal views are on it.
If you’re going to adhere to the Leviticus notion that homosexuality is bad, then you’d better also adhere to the notion (say) that women have utterly no rights whatsoever and are essentially deemed property. Oh, and that adultering women should be stoned to death. Not the adultering men, of course, good Heavens no. Whether you like it or not, *such features were part of that society*.
Again, as I said, I’m not arguing that homosexuality is wrong.
Second, the Bible DOES condem males as well as females when committing what it views as carnal acts (Levitcus 20:10-18), so if your implication is that machismo is an undercurrent of the Bible and therefore nullifies it, you should give it another read.
Plus (again, not to actively support it), one might suggest that actually having God directly among you, and being considered one of his people, should be an active incentive to avoid even the smallest wrong-doing. If you do it anyway, in these living conditions, isn’t that just a BIT brazen?
So, Sir. If you’re utterly convinced that the Bible is against homosexuality, are you also for the notion of stoning adultering women, and that women shouldn’t have little luxuries like voting rights? Because I’m sorry, it is abject nonsense to support the “gay is bad” notion without accepting the rest of it.
And again, I say that as a lifelong Christian.
And again, you need and deserve to have your own views. But you’re only a lifelong Christian, not Christ himself, and your statements should be qualified as such.
And again, as I keep saying over and over, I’m not trying to attack or defend homosexuality, or God, or the Bible — it’s an example, not the point. People are continually trying to defend their social views — that’s fine, but they weren’t being attacked in the first place.
The ONLY thing that I’ve been saying from the get-go is that it’s improper to re-write a person’s argument, whether right or wrong, merely to fit your own. I don’t have to defend the Bible’s point of view in order to defend that it HAS a point of view (just like I don’t have to be black to condemn racism).
The Bible doesn’t say ONCE that God approves of homosexuality, and says MANY times that he actively DISAPPOVES. The Bible also says in many Scriptures that Christ shares God’s mind (I’ll provide the Scriptures later if requested).
You offer no proof of your point, and certainly none to oppose the Bible’s; you merely suggest that your view that the Bible’s perspective is inappropriate as PROOF IN ITSELF that God agrees with you, which is hardly conclusive.
Everyone here may be right. Everyone may think that God and Christ share their views, or that they at least SHOULD. I don’t argue that. All I’m saying is that precedent DOESN’T SUGGEST SO, and it’s a little presumptuous to rewrite or insert your views into God’s mouth, especially when concrete statements to the contrary are on the record.
After all, directly contradicting the Bible to promote the liberal social cause-du-jour is not much different in principle (although CERTAINLY in practice and severity, no arguments!) than contradicting it while using it as an endorsement for murder (whether the cause is Nazism, a Ji-had or killing abortionists).
If God appears to anyone here, empowers him with the ability to perform miracles to satisfy his credentials (which always happened when a prophet was updating the status quo), then I’ll adhere to the Gospel According to X. Until then, your opinions deserve no more weight than anyone else’s.
But what I don’t get, as you are “a lifelong Christian”, is why you take such pride in such an association but are willing to undercut any laws in it that you don’t agree with? I’m not saying you’re incorrect, but you’re the one who brought your belief system up. I’ve mentioned this earlier, but why call yourself a Christian at all if you apparently have problems with some of the views? Are you saying the Bible is wrong? Then why be a Christian, or what power does it have if you can’t believe in it? Or is the Bible the inspired Word of God? Then why do you fight it?
After all, Christ never contradicted the Mosaic law during his time on Earth — he merely emphasized that the driving motivation behind it, love, was being forgotten in the name of piety and tradition (which, again, both the left and the right are guilty of today). But Christ never said that his love was an endorsement for humans to abandon all of God’s standards. After all, doesn’t religion suggest that we model ourselves after God rather than the other way around?
But still, this is besides the point.
Ultimately, this is my one and only argument for this thread:
By all means, express your opinions. If you think the Bible’s right, say so. If you think the Bible’s wrong, say so. That’s cool. Just stop re-writing (or ignoring) history, and stop saying that you’re speaking FOR God (like the writers of THE BOOK OF DANIEL) or for other people (like Wildmon). Just speak for yourself, and argue your case on its own merits.
If God has something else to add on his own behalf, he can handle it.
Not wishing to get into a huge, tangled and ultimately profitless debate for all concerned, so let me just reply…
>
No, my point is that some conservatives seem to zero in on the verses that mention homosexuality, and willfully ignore the stuff around it. They’ll decide to villify homosexuality, but they won’t — oh, say — claim that adulterers should be stoned. Yet if you read Leviticus, the two points pretty much have equal weight. Ergo, if Leviticus is among your defences that homosexuality is bad, then you pretty much better adhere to the notion that we should, as a society, stone adulterers to death. Funny how few conservatives are willing to stump for the latter point.
Oh, and women are property and you can’t eat shrimp either. I’m sorry, but it’s in there.
Allow me to repeat myself: “Anyone who tells you ‘God disproves of homosexuality’ is usually highlighting some Bible verses while willfully ignoring others, not bothering to apply much context to the text and generally tossing Christ’s message of love, tolerance and compassion out the window.
Curses… cut and paste didn’t work on that last post. Lemmie try again…
“So, ultimately, what’s your point? Except for when it’s mentioned, homosexuality isn’t mentioned?”
No, my point is that some conservatives seem to zero in on the verses that mention homosexuality, and willfully ignore the stuff around it. They’ll decide to villify homosexuality, but they won’t — oh, say — claim that adulterers should be stoned. Yet if you read Leviticus, the two points pretty much have equal weight. Ergo, if Leviticus is among your defences that homosexuality is bad, then you pretty much better adhere to the notion that we should, as a society, stone adulterers to death. Funny how few conservatives are willing to stump for the latter point.
Oh, and women are property and you can’t eat shrimp either. I’m sorry, but it’s in there.
Allow me to repeat myself: “Anyone who tells you ‘God disproves of homosexuality’ is usually highlighting some Bible verses while willfully ignoring others, not bothering to apply much context to the text and generally tossing Christ’s message of love, tolerance and compassion out the window.
“All I’m saying is that precedent DOESN’T SUGGEST SO, and it’s a little presumptuous to rewrite or insert your views into God’s mouth”
Gee, that was kinda my point about the whole Christan condemnation of homosexuality, which seems pretty motivated by big, stinky fear while NARROWLY using the Bible to tenuously support what amounts to discrimination, hatred and bigotry.
While I certainly admit that homosexuality is technically mentioned in the Bible as bad, it simply is not, if you actually READ the text and apply some context, deserving of the condemnation that Christians apply.
I find it disturbing, in other words, how many Christians will condemn homosexuality without even reading the Bible or attempting to figure out what it means. If that happened more often, we probably wouldn’t even be having this debate. The notion that the Bible condemns homosexuality in the fashion that’s usually trucked out is simply off-base.
“I’ve mentioned this earlier, but why call yourself a Christian at all if you apparently have problems with some of the views?”
You’re laboring under the misconception that every Christian has to adhere to the same views. When on Earth did that start? Do we all now have to buy into Pat Robertson’s calls for assassination, or that Sharon got his stroke because he displeased God?
I don’t have issues with Christian views, but I take issue with Christians who pervert Jesus’ message to their own ends. I fail to see the problem with this.
It really scares me when people claim to be acting on behalf of anyone else, but especially when they’re acting on behalf of God. A lot of these people are incapable of acting on their OWN behalf, and yet they’re gonna presume to act for God. You can use scripture to argue anything you want, but much of it if taken out of the context is much like Lucy going to Linus after she finds the word “Sister” in the Bible and that proves he needs to get her a Christmas present. A person can use Scripture to PROVE to people anything they want, homosexuality is BAD, woman are INFERIOR or PROPERTY, etc. etc. so on and so forth. The people that used to live underneath us had the Christian music playing all the time, statuary all over the place, chuch every Sunday, but they were the LARGEST, SMELLIEST twerps I would ever hope to meet. If you want to live as Christ intended, then firstly, accept those different from you as different, not vile.
“Brokeback Mount Doom.”
Well, there were those looks Frodo and Sam exchanged on the mountain… 🙂
Oh and don’t forget the four hobbits bouncing around on the bed at the end of Return of the King …