Slashdot Mirror
End of Some Days, Beginning of Others
"The End of Days" is aptly titled: this sorry movie marks the end of Arnold Schwarzenegger's spectacular reign as America's Armageddon Action hero. It also reminds us that Hollywood will soon have to find some doomsday vehicle other than the Millennium.
This movie - awful in almost every conceivable way - is symbolic, if not perhaps in the way it intended. This era in Apocalyptic action movies seems over.
Schwarzenegger has been making end-of-the-world Millenial movies for years, although usually much more inventive ones that this. His films have always had similar plot lines: technology and humanity will collide, possibly to destroy the earth.
In "End of Days," Schwarzenegger plays a suicidal ex-cop up against an adversary that would put Batman to shame - Satan himself. The Evil One has been loosed upon the earth to fulfill ancient prophesies that if he can bed the right virgin at the Millenial hour, the gates of Hell will open so that he and his minions can ravage the earth.
"End of Days" pretends to be a movie about faith versus ultimate evil, about belief versus high-powered shotguns. It suggests that Schwarzenegger has undergone some sort of personal conversion, as the the movie strains mightily to make a personal statement, even down to its pumped-up star's assumption of the cruciform position.
EoD is filled with religious imagery, spiritual mumbo-jumbo and clunky metaphor - fallen priests and others get crucified, burned and butchered almost continuously.
Perhaps fittingly, Satan occupies the body of an investment banker (Gabriel Byrne) as a prelude to his cosmic sexual assault. Byrne is a bright, enthusiastically malignant spot in this dreary tale.
As you might expect, Satan is only nearly as tough as Schwarzenegger, and not nearly as willful. Satan can turn people and buildings into fire, blow up whole blocks with a glare, heal bullet wounds with a touch of his finger, alter fate and time. But he can't quite seem to get his hands on the girl or polish off a suicidal, alcoholic ex-cop or even slow him down much, despite nearly two hours of sometimes mystical, always loud and explosive trying.
The EoD battles rage back and forth across New York city streets and through miles of subway tunnels. Meanwhile, back at the Vatican, the Holy Father and his gloomy cardinals fuss and mumble platitudes and count down to the end of humanity, some trusting in Him, others in more practical solutions like guns and knives.
Around the world, the clerical forces of good are huddled in church basements clacking furiously away at their computer terminals, one of the movie's only original touches (only for the life of me, I can't imagine what they were browsing for).
One of the great blessings of the onrushing Millenium is that there can't be any more movies about Armageddon, since it will either have come or gone.
Or not.
Still, the end of the Schwarzenegger reign - the genre has never seemed more wornout, his stunts increasingly improbably and strained - is bittersweet. In this movie, which fittingly comes with the over-hyped Millenium literally as a backdrop, he seems to be renouncing his own cinematic past, declaring faith and family more powerful than guns and brawn. He seems to be saying that while it's hard to kill Satan off with guns and bombs, pure heart and absolute belief might do it.
It's a wholesome Hollywood message but seems to signal the end of his genre, not humanity's. Movies like "Terminator" were original, even striking in their mixing of dark themes - humans versus machines, technology out of control.
Bully for Arnold if he's found some faith in his life. Really. But he didn't need to share.
The irony in this holiday season is that an animated movie with no humans in it, strikes the more timely themes of humanity, loyalty and friendship, along with technological imagination.
"Toy Story 2"And speaking of imagination, "Toy Story 2" is a knockout. The animation would be unbelievable if it weren't so believable. The movie signals the arrival not just of a breakthrough in computer animation, but the use of computer graphic technologies as a whole new art form, one with amazing creative possibilities. The writing and story line are actually better than the first "Toy Story," a rare achievement for any sequel.
"Dogma""Dogma" is, at least for its first half, a hilariously conceived, funny and brazenly blasphemous poke at Catholic doctrine. That's rare anywhere in American life, let alone from a Hollywood studio (the movie also contains a brief but savage assault on the Disneyfication of American culture). Although the movie struggles over how to end, it's so original as to be shocking.
"Dogma's" weak point is that it's not quite sure whether it wants to be funny, or seeks to make some heavy and serious points about faith and doctrine. This dichotomous struggle shows, giving the movie an oddly-split personality.
"Being John Malkovich"This may be the loopiest premise for a movie in years. A starving geek puppeteer (played by John Cusack) finds himself unexpectedly inside John Malkovich's brain, which he accesses through a closet at work. The result is a hilarious, bizarre and also original journey, the likes of which you are not likely to see very often. This movie has a bit of the same problem as "Dogma": it's a wonderful notion, but the directors aren't entirely sure where to go with it, or how to wrap it up. Still, both are well worth seeing.
"The Insider"
This is one of the best treatments of corporatism and media you'll ever see. "The Insider" purports to tell the story of the squelching of tobacco industry insider Jeffrey Wigand's landmark testimony about nicotine and cigarettes by the supposedly tough and independent-minded newscast "60 Minutes." It's the more or less true story of how CBS producer Lowell Bergman got Wigand, the former head of research at the Brown & Williamson tobacco company to break his confidentiality agreement with the company and go on camera to talk about the biggest health care reform issue in American history.
Wigand's story - that the tobacco industry not only knew that nicotine was addictive, but enhanced the level of addictions in many tobacco products - was explosive. It contradicted the sworn testimony of numerous industry executives, including "The Seven Dwarfs", the tobacco company CEO's who swore before Congress that they didn't? believe nicotine was addictive. Wigand could prove otherwise.
The testimony was suppressed by CBS lawyers - with the acquiescence of timid "60 Minutes" executives - to protect the pending sale of the company to Westinghouse.
Beyond the story of Wigand and the country's most successful TV newsmagazine, "The Insider" is the story of what happens when big corporations take over media, as they've done to virtually all of mainstream American journalism, print and broadcast.
The result isn't pretty, and it's a timely tale for people who love free speech on the Net and Web, as those very same companies are pouring online like the amoral, rapacious and greedy herd that they are.
Apart from the issues it portrays, this is just a great movie. It's mostly a very moving story about what happens to ordinary people when they get caught up in extraordinary events. And it's beautifully shot by director Michael Mann.
"American Movie"This movie blew away the judges at the Sundance Film Festival, and for good reason. It's the documentary account of the profoundly geeky Mark Borchardt, a Milwaukee, Wisconsin cemetery groundskeeper and his obsession with making a retro-horror movie named "Coven" that defies simple discription. Mark's been working on this movie in one form or another his whole life.
His dedication to completing this movie, in the face of staggering familial, financial, aesthetic and emotional odds, is nonething less than heroic. This is an amazing movie, moving, bitterly funny and just plain inspiring.
I'm not interested in any of these films. They are too pop-American for my humble taste. Now, "Wallace and Gromit" (showing this weekend on TV) is another matter. =Those= are TRUE geek movies, IMHO! I'd -love- to see a wide-screen version.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Damn it... could you you be any harder on the movie... seems like you were already prejudiced against it before you even saw it. I personally thought it was a great movie, prehaps the most enjoyable I've seen since the matrix. Arnold's perhaps the best he's ever been... especially since Terminator 2. Byrne makes a picture perfect satan incarnate... the actors do a good job... the movies isn't overladen with special effects, and nor does it need to be. So, anyone who reads this... unless you have tast similar to the author... and even if you do... give end of days a chance... I think you'll like it.
I think this flick is still in theaters and it's definatly worth a look. Kevin Spacey has to be one of my favorite actors in a long time. The movie was one of those that had me still sitting in the theater as the credits rolled because I had taken in so much.
The Green Mile promises to be another movie in the same vein as American Beauty in that the movie leave's you in your seat at the end as you try to soak up the whole thing.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
I found Dogma to be hilarious, but I don't know how Geek-oriented it was. It does show a great deal of challenge towards traditional Catholic dogma, which is an interest shared by, but not limited exclusively to, geeks.
I also didn't see quite the split personality that Katz described in the film, I thought the transitions between comic scenes and lessons of faith were very well done. All in all an excellent film, but not for the easily-offended.
-- "God, Root, what is difference?" - Pitr, "User Friendly"
"What is this power that Malkovich holds over us?"
---------------------------
49 20 68 61 76 65 20 74 6F 6F 20 6D 75 63 68 20 66 72 65 65 20 74 69 6D 65 2E
I thought TS2 was great (and, of course, our 6 year old loved it). I thought the handling of skin was much improved this time, but I was surprised that they still hadn't gotten realistic walking. Probably the biggest thing left to go is imperfections (i.e., the dust seemed 'flat', the road looked better than any actual road, and where is this town with all shiny cars :) Still, a great story makes it well worth it (plus you get to see a famous short first)
Shut up, be happy. The conveniences you demanded are now mandatory. -- Jello Biafra
Here in Ireland, we're a bit behind on the movie front; it's generally out on video in the US before we get to see it.
But anyway...
Last week I saw an amusing science fiction movie called 'Tron', which starred Captain Sheridan. Great plot, great graphics... I can't recommend it highly enough.
I was also jealous to note that you've all seen the new star wars movie. I'm really looking forward to it. Is it true that it's no longer called 'Revenge of the Jedi'?
I don't think enough is being said about Being John Malkovitch. It's a truly bizarre gem of a movie, one you would expect to be made by a few stoned kids with the Sundance Festival crowd in mind, and not a US-wide distribution with a cast of well-recognisable faces.
I disagree with you. I think they had a very clear idea of where they were going, and they constantly made a point of playing with our expectations. Things like, 'Surely they can't do that to John Malkovitch!' In the end, they took what was a nifty concept, and pushed it to the extreme.
Unless, of course, when you say 'wrap up' you mean 'give a neat little happy ending where bad is punished and the hero gets the girl.'
Frankly, you should have spent more time reviewing movies you liked (like Dogma, BJM and TS2) than blasting Arnie's flick. What did you expect? Shakespeare dialogue? Incisive insight into the nature of evil? EoD doesn't pretend to be anything else than it is: an exploitation, wrapped in special effects and action, of the vaguely pop cultural notion that the world could end in 2000.
I have to agree with the assessment of these two flicks. Last weekend I saw TS2, EOD and the latest Bond flick. The only one worth anything was Toy Story II. Gabriel Byrne was the best thing about EOD (and did a good job in Stigmata too) while Denise Richards looked very good in a wet t-shirt in TWINE.
The thing I was most disappointed by was Arnie's weak attempt at acting. I normally like him, but he failed miserably at trying to play a suicidal ex-cop. It was a pale attempt at copying Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon. Mind you, he was hindered by bad writing. Not only did EOD borrow from Lethal Weapon but it also borrowed from Prince of Darkness (IMHO a much better if older movie). Now borrowing isn't bad. I just wished that they'd done something good with the borrowing. EOD was plagued by bad dialogue and bad editing.
TSII on the other hand was a nice, light comedy that was appropriate for Young-uns as well as adults. It had an interesting plot, nice dialogue, intelligent jokes and excellent animation. It was good entertainment.
TWINE was similar in feel to the last Bond flick - TND. However, it was not nearly as slick. The editing just wasn't on - the pacing felt jerky.
Dogma was as the reviewer said not quite sure what it wanted to be. I do think that it worked anyway. I really enjoyed the film and it's blend of the sacreligious, the profane, and the humourous. I am a fan of Kevin Smith and this movie reaffirms that.
Just some thoughts....
IMHO, as per
J:)
Oh well, no point in steering now.
Pretty mediocre; I've still yet to find anyone who particularly loved it. Typical Arnold Schwartzenegger movie with a theological twist. And twisted theology, at that. You'd be much better off trying to catch Gabriel Byrnes' other recent religion movie, Stigmata.
The writers of this movie appeared to have banked on Arnold's name, and not put an ounce of real creativity into the movie; the lunatic priest's name is "Thomas Aquinas". I mean, how lacking in creativity can one writing staff be?
Dogma
Sorry, John, it's only blasphemous if you let it be, and that's what that splinter-group Catholic faction has done. It's not the church as a whole, it's just a small group of people. You run into that with any denomination within the church, any church within the religion, any religion within the world. It was only blasphemous to those who don't want their beliefs to be challeged... really though, if you can't challenge your beliefs about something, you don't really believe.
In any case, this movie was excellent. Chris Rocke wasn't great, but he's a comedian, no one ever said he could act. Silent Bob's (Kevin Smith) rare one-liners were well-placed as always; the constantly-obscene Jay (Jason Mewes) gets the usual, hilarious exposure. Jason Lee was good as Azrael, but I think would have been better-suited for the role originally planned for him (Matt Damon's character, Loki).
Good discussions of faith issues, although I think they could have been longer. However, that would have bored most audiences these days. A lot of blood and guts, but it, like a lot of Smith's work, is intended, hyperbole.
In the end, a really good, really funny movie. No reason to be offended unless you take your faith so seriously (in that sense, I mean mood, not strength) that any criticism pushes your panic button... in which case, I suggest you cozy up with a Good Book.
Oh yeah. Yet Another Hicks Guy (YAHG?) shows up in this movie, too.
Perhaps now that writers will no longer have the impending millenium to prop up their plot lines we will see the return of imaginative speculative science fiction of the likes of Bradbury, Doc smith, Assimov, and Heinlen. Perhaps we will see the birth of the next centuries literary guardians. After all, Science Fiction shapes our desires for science fact, the goal is always to do what the writers said you should be able to do. Welcome the flying cars, the infinite free clean energy, and the world peace, welcome the new age of Science Fiction.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
the 50's represent a period far enough in the past that seems to many to be the "golden age".. despite the 50's discusting underbelly, it attempted to present a clean and wholesome society in backlash to the horror of the 40's war and the darkness of the 30's depression.
For the right crowd (mainly the middle and upper class white Americans), the 50's were a heyday of "Americanism", and a nice clear-cut us-versus-them of the cold war.
Now, in the age of non-identity, where being yourself is important, but having an identity that is not acceptible if it makes anyone feel uncomfortable, everyone wants to have that "American-childhood".. or at least they want to pretend that the illusion was good enough.
The 50's resurgance is like the 70's resurgence, young people can only see the images given them of a generation, and most of them provide an unclear picture of those who lived through it.
Many of the failed ideals of the 60's and failed "openness" and "friendliness" of the 70's led to the "uncertainty" of the 90's. So we explored the 60's, and we didn't like how it applied to the 90's (riots at woodstock pretty much signed and dated that death)... so now the 50's and 70's are having a go.
It is interesting to note many of the puritanical "keep it in the closet" Victorian values that are showing a resurgance...
Then Again, it could be that 50's cartoons just had a certain flair... and I'm just over analyzing.
I'm sure, in minutes, there will be any number of posts alleging that the "end of days" plot line somehow invalidates Christianity. I'm sure that some people will even try to assert that, when January 1, 2000 comes, Christianity will finally be proved false. In fact, it seems that that is exactly what Jon Katz is trying to imply. This is untrue.
There are a whole range of opinions on how to interpret scripture regarding the apocalypse. Believe it or not, the "left behind" approach exemplified by "end of days" was not at all popular until about the middle of the nineteenth century. St. Augustine thought that Christ's second coming had /already happened/. For those of you who don't know, St. A was hardly a lightweight (although I tend to disagree with him on many things). I'm not saying that either one of these approaches is valid or correct: I honestly don't know. What I do know is that Jesus Himself said that noone would know when he was coming again (in the first chapter of Acts: look it up yourself) -- and I am skeptical of anyone who claims to be able to narrow the time frame at all through any means. And I know that I hope to be ready whenever Jesus comes. Tomorrow or 2000 years from now.
Anyway, the point is that Christian Doctrine is far more complex than Slashdot readers give it credit for. And often, what non-Christians see are only the most extreme examples of it. After all, the slow rise of society to Godliness over the course of millenia wouldn't make a very good movie, would it?
Martin Luther said that most people are like a drunken horseback rider: they fall off the horse to the left, only to get back on and fall back off the horse to the right. This is very true: people tend to gravitate towards extreme. However, in Christian doctrine correctness most often lies in balance between two seemingly contradictory statements. E.g. Jesus being fully God and being fully man. People, through hubris, try to wittle it down to something far easier to understand. And fall off the horse. Why shouldn't God be a paradox?
Finally, let me point out some things that I, as a serious, conservative Christian, don't believe:
- That there is anything wrong with drinking in moderation.
- That government-employee-led prayer in public schools should be allowed.
- That the the Ten Commandments should be posted in schools.
- That Christians should form Political Action Committees.
- That all Gay people are going to hell.
- Most anything you'll hear come out of the mouths of certain televangelists (these people are, for the most part, not very doctrinally accurate).
- Blue laws (I.e. stores closed on Sundays).
Many slashdot readers choose, like Katz, to confine their knowledge of Christianity to one extremist view (in his case the idea that some have that Jesus will come in y2k). And hence, they not only fall off the proverbial horse, but fall behind it, face down, and wonder how anyone could want to be involved in this horse when all they can see is it's rear end.*sigh* I'll take my flames now. And I really wish that Rob would try for a little more balance in the philosphies and world views he allows on slashdot.
-- Slashdot sucks.
Don't get me wrong, it was still a pretty darn good movie, but it just wasn't as good as it could have been.
As per geek orientation: I think this movie scores more points in that catagory than you give it credit for. Begin with the fact that many geeks (probably more than in the general population) despise the whole "blind faith" thing -- the average geek recognizes, for example, that people in Kansas are a bunch of bumkins for banning Darwin in the schools. The part about valuing ideas over faith made me smile.
Additionally, there are a lot of geeks who are into the whole mythology (and I know She hates it wen you use that word) thing. How many of us played D&D when we were kids? How many of us used to try to point out the infamous International Date-Line Loophole in the catholic dogma? How many of us (and I realize that this may be a bit of a departure) like to see Selma Hyak in her underwear?
Besides, who other than a geek is going to find Silent Bob's one-line-per-movie Movie Quotes that funny? (A guy in front of me at the theatre didn' get "No Ticket.")
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
One thing that should intrest some of you was that the translation work was handled by Neil Giaman of "Sandman" fame. So if you have the opertunity check this out.
Later...
That's not a very accurate description of what Amereican Movie is about.
Go here for a better idea.
-nme!
I haven't seen EOD and probably won't (ok, maybe when it comes out on video...) Judging by your description, though, I continue to be amazed that a sweet and ulimately deeply religious film like Dogma draws protesters while tripe like this which shows priests being butchered and, judging from the commercials, churches being blown up or whatever, doesn't elicit a peep from these morons........
The fundamental nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can. -- John Prine
definitely wierd, crazy, smart (as in you have to be to understand what's going on) - I give it 4 penguins
You don't seem to have a problem with a movie that purportedly criticizes faith (Dogma).
Dogma does not criticize faith it celebrates it. What it criticizes is hypocrisy and dogmatic beliefs that can lend themselves to extremism.
Bad Command Or File Name
Denise Richards: Man, is she hot. Man, she really can't act. I mean seriously, the idea of her being a nuclear scientist seemed like sarcasm. She delivered her lines so poorly I was beginning to wish they'd dubbed someone else's voice over hers.
Poorly Exploited Villain Gimmick: I expected them to do a bit more with a villain who didn't feel pain than to have him hold a hot rock and get a piece of glass stuck in his hand. I liked everything else about this villain other than this. I mean, have Bond blow off one of his arms and have him not give a rat's ass or something.
Silly Action Sequence: I won't be too specific here to avoid spoilers, but the helicopters were a bit much. Besides, I expected some more out of the car (which is usually the ultimate Bond gadget).
Good points: The last line of the movie had me chuckling to myself while I was driving home. The stunt with the boat in the opening action sequence made my jaw drop. The other females were good (even when they were bad). This is the first Bond villain who's ever really connected with the audience. If you absolutely must prepare for Q's retirement, John Cleese is as good a guy as any to fill that role.
Overall, not a bad movie, but definately not one of the better ones and not one which will help Pierce approach Connery's still-definitive Bond.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
What I want to know is why is the church getting so worked up over Dogma when movies like Stigmata and EOD get by with no notice. I am not a christian but to me they seemed a lot more offensive. If you liked Chasing Amy and Clercks then you will love Dogma. I agree that the ending was a little weak but the first 3/4 of the movie more than made up for the weak ending. In case you are interested here is a link to official Kevin Smith page. A new animated show based on Clerks will also appear on ABC next season.
Vidi, vici, veni. (I saw, I conquered, I came)
But that will at least be a NEW plot device, I imagine people will be a bit more optimistic when the world doesn't end and we havea new, fresh, 1000 years ahead of us to enjoy the peace and prosperity we have created. Maybe I'll give Sci-Fi writing a crack myself, can't hurt.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
I suppose that I'm an asshole-- I went to see it simply because it was being protested. I fought my way through the picketers and the people telling me about how I was going to eternally rot in hell for even entering a theatre that would show anything so blasphemous (at least, they'll say that until next week, when they have to go fight the *new* good fight).
I actually liked the movie. And not for the heavy-handed religious principles-- not even for being hilarious. I liked it because Kevin Smith told a story. And as outrageous and outlandish as it was, he told it well.
Now, I've never seen "Mall Rats" or "Clerks" or "Chasing Amy", so I didn't go see it out of any obligation to a specific director (Lucas, anybody?). I went to see it for three general reasons:
* I don't like the church telling me I shouldn't go see a movie, so fuck them.
* I wanted to decide for myself if the fuss was really deserved.
* It looked like a really good movie.
Now, I will admit: Dogma's script needed a little work, but it's better than anything I could ever write, so I don't feel I should complain. And the special effects were, yes, kinda cheesy (the Golgothan, for example, was almost campy).
But the acting and directing pulled it off. The movie is supposed to be somewhat surreal, and it is. In spite of some problems with the script and the special effects and such, the movie comes across as a story well told. The characters aren't as superficial as a lot of people would like to pass them off as being, and it brings out a lot of things in some of the actors-- for example, Chris Rock has a number of serious moments (which he handles quite well!).
As for the "split personality"-- well, I can see where that feeling comes from. But in another sense, I also see the movie as tying the two together. It all depends on how you look at it.
All in all, I thought it was a good movie, partially in spite of its shortcomings, partially because of its shortcomings.
Dogma was probably Kevin Smith's finest in terms of all-around quality. To understand it, you need to watch his previos three. To truly be able to watch ANY Smith movie, you really do need to watch them all in order of release-they work of off each other. Silent Bob, for those not in the know, is Smith the director. The humor of it is, he just sits there, says one or two things funny/insightful for the entire movie(except Chasing Amy), and he just makes gestures, but thats it. More or less, he keeps Jay in check, I would say. As far as calling it a half finished movie, what anyone who sees it needs to take into consideration-Smith was forced to cut over an hour from the film(can't wait for that DVD), so no doubt, some key developments that would have helped lay on a cutting room floor, or his View Askew vault. He was under tremendous pressure, for writing and making a movie that so many people who were raised Catholic should be able to relate to-either on a serious level, or a comedic level-there were plenty of protests against it, and in the spring, he didn't even have a distributor-disney/miramax kinda dropped him because of the pressure. so-if you need to get a better background of Kevin Smith style of film, watch(in this order) Clerks, Mallrats, Chasing Amy, then Dogma.
Cartoon Network, Saturday, 7pm I think. (Check your local listings, in case it's a different time for you.) All 3 films are going to be shown, apparently.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I'm confused as to what (in traditional R.C. dogma) this movie challenged. I considered it more or less to be a few amusing 'what ifs' (13th apostle, black, supressed by writers of the Bible) than any real challenge to Roman Catholicism. I don't truly understand the bruhaha. AFAIK, the notion that Mary stayed a virgin her whole life long is a medieval one, a popular myth of her as the 'rose without a thorn'
No where in the Bible does it claim that she and Joeseph didn't have children; I believe, in fact that scholars have proven she did. Personally, I've always taken it for granted that Jesus had brothers and sisters.
I think perhaps the people who are creating the fuss are people who don't give their faith much thought, and don't read anything but the Bible, if that. It's just plain ignorance on the part of a few very bored Catholics.
I'm sorry for anyone who can't get past the surface of the movie to notice the deeper themes. Kevin Smith may be an irreverant guy, but he has a deep faith (which I do not share, but I respect). He's trying (I think) to point out to the world that, though priests and people may do horrible things, they are not G/god. They don't even have any sanction by g/God.
And that the beliefs of the R.C. church do not represent all Catholics.
It frustrates me that so simple a statement can't get by without those 'devout' people sending death threats (I don't remember a 'Unless they really offend you or piss you off' clause to 'Love thy neighbor' or 'Thou shalt not kill') to studio executives and other people associated with the movie.
Uhhh, back to the movie; I thought it was solid. Not brilliant, but solid. Nice to see that someone still has faith. And nice to see Alan Rickman, just looking and acting gorgeously. I'm such a sucker for a man with an accent!
And I Feel Fine.
This puts me in mind of a comment in some book I never did finish: Hocus Pocus, by Vonnegut, maybe (I'm not 100% sure of either). It was set just out of the turn of the century, and one of the first paragraphs had a line about the world not ending in 2000, which proved (only) that God doesn't believe in numerology. I'm no biblical scholar, and belief is not an issue I'm going to get into here, but I seem to remember that "no one shall know the hour or the day" if Armageddon is for real. Also consider that the best current estimates of Christ's birth place it several years after the B.C. to A.D. changeover. All in all, I have to consider the idea that the end of the world is pencilled in for 2000 (or the belief that all Christians think so, or even that the Bible says so) are a bunch of hooey.
On the other hand, I do hope that the turn of the millenium will put an end to the gawdawful stream of exploitative pop media based on the idea of a religious or technological apocalypse. The "Y2K" movie (which has caused me to remove NBC from my TV channel scan, it was so inane) was just the latest idiocy, and far from the worst; what really disturbs me is the popularity of the "Left Behind" series of "Christian Science Fiction" novels. My biggest worry about the date changeover is that there seem to be a lot of people who want to bring the world to an end.
That being said, there is one "Armageddon" novel that I do like: Good Omens by Gaiman and Pratchett. I suspect that a lot of the people who enjoyed Dogma would enjoy this one. Very funny, and poses even more interesting questions about religion than Dogma does.
Weblogging Considered Harmful:
Because, after all, the millenium is more than a year away.
(yes, I did read the article at wired, and I'm still saying this)
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Perhaps the best film out this year (and still playing in a few places to this day) is Run Lola Run - a German film by Tom Twyker starring Franka Potente. This is a brilliant film taking non-linear storytelling elements (like how possible outcomes and futures all tie in to a series of critical decisions).. combined with amazing cinematography and a soundtrack better than the Matrix or Pulp Fiction makes this easily my favorite film. I reccomend it to any person - geek or non geek for the sheer fantastical quality of a very realistic film. The heroine and her boyfriend do exactly was any person in a desperate situation would do - whatever is necessary. It comes out on DVD on the 21st, so if you can't be one of the lucky ones to see this amazing film on the screen, be sure to rent it. I personally have my fingers crossed that they win the Oscar for Best Foreign Film in March... if not something more.
American Beauty not only had some great societal criticism and some great acting (Spacey up for oscar, I think, and Benning was pretty damn good, plus that dude from Pleasantville as the kid drug dealer neighbor)... It was also funny as hell. There were a couple a points where my wife & I were just ROTFL.... Spacey's character after buying the old Camaro "I rule!"
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
May I make an observation? You note that I research teh topic I post on and conveigh a sense of intelligence in my writing. You are correct on both counts. I am a computer engineer working on a theology degree -- i guess that makes me qualified.
Maybe the contradiction lies in your characterization of God as a "boogyman" -- and I honestly believe that, if you took the time to research (as I have) you would find that he is far more than a boogyman.
Read about Jesus. And remember that this is God. Not half of God, or part of God, but God's own revelation of himself to mankind. Or at least so I believe. You might be surprised at what you find.
-- Slashdot sucks.
I wouldn't call Dogma at all suspect -- in fact it's probably the most pro-faith movie I've ever seen. It doesn't Christian-bash at all, IMO. I saw it as a very serious (and funny) exploration of faith and religious dogma. It comes down on the side of God, but not on the side of the Church. I'm an atheist, and I've gone through much of the same process -- though I came up with a different answer, I find Smith's exploration fascinating. In short, ignore the people who haven't seen the movie and are merely objecting to questioning Catholicism (like the Catholic League) and see it for yourself.
There was also a 'Jay & Silent Bob' comic (4 parter), which was put into a compilation trade paperback just before Dogma hit theatres.
(check your local comic shop -- it's $12 or so, but it'd explain some things not fully in the movies...like why the details around the scene in Chasing Amy, what happened to the chimp at the end of Mallrats, more background on Mooby, and where Silent Bob got the Mooby cap from, etc.)
It also pokes some fun as Neil Patrick Harris (and the claim that his job in Starship Troopers was to finance his "quasi-indie film" [porn movie]), and has a brief cameo by Mr. Rogers.
Also, last year, View Askew (with Oni Press), put out the 'Clerks Holiday Special, which explains what happened to Caitlin Bree. There was also an issue of the Clerks comic which explained more about Steve Dave and um...whoever his yes-man is. (unfortunately, I don't know what I did with that...I'm in the middle of packing).
And, for the references to 'Walt Flanagan's Dog', you'd have to find the back issue of Oni Double Feature that had the story. (which again, is probably already moved, so I can't look up the issue in question)
For more info on Kevin Smith's work, there's also News Askew, which mentions that "Clerks: the animated series" will debut on 07Feb2000.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
These movies aren't usually about art. They're about masculinity. We over here in the US like to drink beer, eat pizza, and watch people blow shit up sometimes.
The Terminator series is about the best example of this. Cameron was either good or just lucky enough to give the audience something really good to think about and I've always been fascinated by the paradox he creates in T2. If they successfully prevent SkyNET from being built then how does the T-800 get sent back to 1984? If Kyle Reese was not chasing that T-800 then how did he get to 1984? If Kyle Reese doesn't get back to 1984 how is John concieved?
If John is never concieved then WHO is there to help the humans destroy SkyNET's defense grid and necessitate the sending of the T-800 to 1984? If it's not John Connor then WHY was the T-800 sent to kill his mother in 1984?
I've given up. I'll never run out of questions as it relates to the plotline of this movie.
But my point is this, movies don't have to be about (a bow to Eric Cartman) gay cowboys eating pudding in order to be good. As long as you understand what the point of the movie is. Is it to entertain, is it to make you think, is it to scare you, is it to impressyou with acting ability, or is it something else. Judge a movie based upon what it's intent is and how close it comes to doing what the film makers intended.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I was disappointed by Dogma, and I think that while it IS ambitious, ultimately it's Kevin Smith's weakest film.
I heard a rumor that Kevin Smith wrote the script for Dogma before he did Clerks. If so, it explains a lot. Dogma just seems to have been written in a much less mature fashion than Smith's other pictures. In fact, I found the similarities between Dogma and typical fan fic to be striking.
Firstly, the tone of the film is very uneven. Dogma tends to careen between Smith's trademark low comedy, and a "serious" central plot about two homicidal fallen angels trying to get back into heaven, which if they succeed will cause the destruction of all Creation. The humorous parts are funny, but the serious parts don't really ever click, IMHO, and the two parts of the movie never really gel together. It's very much like the kind of fanfic where humorous characters from a comedy are running around with serious characters from an action/drama piece, and both are trying to do their trademark bits, but the two styles of narrative get in each other's way: the serious stuff seem ludicrous alongside the comedy, and the violence makes the comedy seem less funny.
Secondly, we have the problem of self-insertion, where the writer writes themselves into the story. Kevin Smith writes a Silent Bob part into all of his movies, though he didn't originally plan to play the part himself. Usually, though, it's a small part, but in Dogma, Jay and Silent Bob are on screen as primary characters. At times, this tends to weaken the film, especially at one point where Silent Bob gets mad and throws the primary villians around, which kind of diminishes them as a threat.
Lastly, there's the problem that the main story really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. On one hand, the plot is based on the need to prevent God's omnipotent will from being contravened, but on the other hand the plot also depends on God being neither omnipotent, omniscient, nor omnipresent. It really prevented me from buying into the movie.
I don't want to say that Dogma is without any merit. It's very funny in spots, and it has a great cast of charismatic actors who light up the screen and are interesting just to watch (watch for cameos by Smith regulars Brian O'Halloran, Walt Flanigan and Scott Mosier). People like to chide Kevin Smith for his minimal camerawork, but Dogma does a lot better in this respect than some of his other films: there are more subtle dolly shots and quick cuts, and the camera generally moves around a lot more. Ultimately, though, it's a movie that is less than the sum of its parts: it never really comes together.
Jon
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
This is the best movie I have seen in years. It is as striking a work of art as Pulp Fiction or Drugstore Cowboy was when they came out; Spike Jonze's camera work and whoever-wrote-the-script's storyline are fantastic. It's a bit like Brazil.
Simply, IF YOU MISS THIS MOVIE YOU HAVE MISSED THE MOST INTERESTING "ART" FILM IN A LONG TIME.
I have heard great things about The Insider but as far as creativity, Being John Malkovitch is the most innovative piece I've seen in a long time.
I think most people here will enjoy it a great deal; it plays with your mind, the characters are all engaging and well developed, and watching it often feels like a waking dream in terms of the improbable physical principles and phenomena of the world Jonze has created, meshed against John Malkovitch's day-to-day activities. Extremely weird, you probably need to see it to understand.
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
You're right on all counts but Dogma. This is basically a prototypical pop movie in that mocking Catholics is just about the safest naughty thing you can do in America today. My biggest problem with that movie is that it was so politically correct in its humor: God's a woman, there's a black apostle, it doesn't matter what you believe "as long as you believe in something"- absolutely typical sentiments of touchy-feely new age spiritualism in the ninties. It's bad news when you sit down in a movie that's supposed to shock and can predict all the jokes. On the other hand, the writing had a lot of wit and the actors that could pull off the Dante and Randal routine (the renegade angels did an awesome job) really brought me back to Clerks, which was funnier and a better crafted movie in the sense that it made its point with a needle rather than a railroad tie.
Okay, i think you read a little too much into the Armageddon comment by Katz. However, since I agree with your views for most of your comment, I'll let that lie.
... to confine their knowledge of Christianity to one extremist view ... And hence, they not only fall off the proverbial horse, but fall behind it, face down, and wonder how anyone could want to be involved in this horse when all they can see is it's rear end.
:-)
Many slashdot readers choose
First lets talk about personal belief.
When someone tells me they are a x-tian, or of any type of faith in fact, I generally turn around and walk away. Why? Because people who say things like that in public should be shunned and barred from polite society.
I don't CARE what religion you are. Deal with your spiritual beliefs on your own time. Belief is a personal thing. It should NOT be presented to others carelessly.
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Before I rant ;-) let me ask you a question...
Do you believe in electricity? In wind? These things have certain measurable effects on the world, but are not visible phenomena. I believe God is much like this.
There are three main evidences that I have seen for God.
1) Man's inherent moral nature
2) Prophicies fufilled
3) His action in my life
Mans moral nature:
C.S. Lewis, a Oxford Prof. or English literature found this to be one of the most convincing evidences for God. He wrote about our "God shaped hole" and how we react to many things in the visable world shows evidence for God. To explain his points well would take to long right now, if you are interested I can write a bit more, or read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. (if you are interested I'll even send you a copy, or your local library will have one.)
(here's a quote from a review on amazon.com:
A staunch agnostic, I read this in college and was floored by the imagery Lewis brings to faith. This book may not convert you, but it offers a view of the power of faith that few writers can create. Religion, in and of itself, is a concept absent of scientific validity because, at its core, is faith. If you are looking for a historical critique or a philosophical deconstruction of Christianity then don't bother becuase, and I will state again, you won't get it. The fact that some will claim the failings of this book are its "flowery postulates without a hint of evidence" show themselves to be living examples of certain characters in the world Lewis creates. It is his attempt to explain that which can not be contained by language that makes this book great. He does not write to prove, he writes to elucidate. It is as if you are reading a landscape painting.
As for the advice to the Atheists, yes, read this book. You might possibly grasp the concept of faith and realize that your "disbelief" is itself a faith, much like Lewis describes, and that your Atheism is a disbelief against the God that is defined and not the God that is.)
Also you might want to do some research on the Bible, find out how many copies we have, and from when.
You will find that we have copies of some of the "Old testament" books from at least a few hundred years before Christ, and every shread of evidence says that they have been around for a long time before that. (we have pieces of books and tablets and such from much before that) It seams that the bible was written by 40 different authors in 10 different countries over a period of 1500 years.
It contains 333 different prophicies about Jesus, with about 60 "major" prophicies. These prophecies included his lineage, his birthplace, his reception by his people, his betrayal and death in minute detail, and many other prophecies. The odds of just 8 of there prophecies coming true in one individual is approx. 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000. The odds of all of them coming true is incredible.
Yet, we have records in the Bible of all of these, and no evidence to deny them, despite the fact that the major power of the time hated Christians (burning them alive, etc) and would have loved to be able to prove it wrong. Some of the fulfilment of these proficies are recorded in secular histories also, and by people who disliked Christians also.
There is an astounding amount of evidence for Christianity, just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Josh McDowell, an once "anti-thiest" who went to Isreal to disprove the Bible once and for all, came back as one of Christianities loudest spokesmen.
The evidence he found was largely published in a two volume set, "Evidence that demands a verdict".
This is a good source of historical information to show that prophecy happened in the Bible, plus that the bible is historically accurate and evidence that Christ did what the Bible said he did.
Both of the above combined make a rather strong case for Christianity. There are pleanty more writers who I could point you to you make a strong case for Chirstianity, and you would do well to learn a bit about what the eveidence is before you default to no evidence. Research, then conclude, or you are at best a religious bigot, not the rational thinker you believe you are..
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
In response to post #169 chronologically.
The Big Bang, the theory that a piece of extremely dense matter about the size of a basketball spontaneously exploded to form the universe as we know it, then this universe that was devoid of life at the time spontaneously generated some form of life which eventually became us, is pretty damn silly sounding to me.
I am a Christian, but most fundies would want me lynched as a heretic. I don't pretend to know the age of the universe because time is a meaningless construct of humanity. As far as we know the universe is only 1 nanosecond old and all of our memories were created as is by some alien computer as a Virtual Life experiment.
I have very Agnostic leanings, but following Pascal's wager (Which I believe to be an excellent model of why scientific logical people should believe in some kind of god ) and my own research on the subject I've come to believe in a more or less traditional Christian view of life,death, God and everything.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
A good book that questions both of these topics is "The 12th planet" by Zecharia Sitchin.
I also highly recommend this book, I read it for the first time 2 years ago and was intrigued with some of the ideas presented. Anyone who is interested in theological theory should read it.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
But that really doesn't matter. Your objection seems to be that the Bible only portrays what I believe about God. In the context of the post I was replying too, that was (and is) perfectly appropriate. Specifically, he said he didn't see how an apparently intelligent person could believe in a "boogeyman" (shouldn't that be "bogeyman"). I replied that the problem wasn't me, it was his perception of God.
And shared my perception.
The evidence of the truth of the Bible lies in my life and the life of others who have given their life to God through Christ. We've got Albert Schweizer, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, and (what the hell) Don Knuth. Would you really like me to name some well known atheists from the twentieth century?
-- Slashdot sucks.
I would venture to say that Katz had the idea of contrasting the new Arnie movie with Toy Story 2 before he saw either one of them and was going to play the "EoD sucked, Toy Story 2 ruled" card no matter what. The only thing that makes me think that isn't true is that I don't think he saw ANY of the movies he mentioned. Three or four sentences on the ground-breaking movie Toy Story 2, and yet a long diatribe about EoD? I could have written the exact same article and I have only seen Dogma. In fact, let me write the same article:
End of Days - sucked
Toy Story 2 - great
Dogma - ok
Being John Malkovich - ok (geek!)
American Movie - great (for a geek)
Why did Jon think he had to flame EoD so much (I still don't think he has even seen it) and barely mention in passing more groundbreaking movies? And knowing that my post so far makes this a pretty ironic point but it just grabs me that Katz feels a more negative, insult filled article would be more interesting than a positive review of Toy Story 2. Katz has never before struck me as so transparent...and unprofessional. Let ME turn in an article so slapdash, unorganized, and so devoid of thought beyond what we might find in a TV Guide review and see if it gets published.
Oh wait, maybe I just did?
And I still believe that Katz has seen even ONE of those movies.
Somewhat off-topic: while bandwidth and TV are great equalizers, movies are about the only "modern" form of the media that people in rural areas don't have equal access to. I for one don't like having to drive 1.5 hrs to see a good movie in a decent environment (yet I can go and see crap like EoD at my local 4-screen, zero-comfort theater), in a college town no less. The decent movies rarely last more than a week, and since it's a four-screener you're lucky if any of them are R-rated (except slasher movies).
Don't get me wrong, I love my DVD player (but that's only good for seeing the best movies of 1998 and early 1999, courtesy of NetFlix). And I did make the trek for Dogma (twice) and American Beauty, both of which are excellent films. Not Egoyan or Sayles, but then again nobody's perfect (except maybe them, on occasion).
My Blog. Sela Ward can sell me long distanc
2) You're putting all your eggs in one basket by assuming that you're betting on the right horse. One of the problems with Pascal's Wager is that the person who puts it forward assumes that there are only two options: either the christian god exists and the christians are right, or no god exists and the atheists are right. But these are not the only two options! What if Zeus is the real god? Then both the christians who worship Yahweh and the atheists who worship nothing are screwed! If you really wanted to play it safe shouldn't you be worshipping everything from Shiva to L. Ron Hubbard? :)
Point 2 invalidates point 1. My faith in God is sincere.I simply have to hope I'm right. Pascals wager is used as a way to get Atheists to at least consider what I'm saying. I didn't mean to imply that I held my beliefs only because of that.>:)
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
I don't think anybody wants this story to turn into a 1500 post argument like the infamous Kansas evolution story but I have to say something about your mistaken beliefs about the universe. I'm no physicist but I am interested and I read alot.
First, no physicist I've ever read has ever said anything about the big bang happening from anything "about the size of a basketball." We have no idea what the thing was that spawned the BB was but physicists tend to agree that it was probably a singularity, a point of infinite density with no size as we think of the word, which are also thought to be at the center of black holes.
Second, "life" is not some mystical thing that had to spring in existence wheras before it didn't exist. Stuff just springing into existence only happens in the Bible. Life is all around us in so many different forms just on this planet that to say that life became us is silly, to use your word. "Life" is just a word that we use to talk about things that are not inanimate. Intelligent life, which is what you probably meant, is trickier to pin down but it still didn't just pop into existence, it's taken billions of years to get to us.
Last, even if the universe is only 1 nanosecond old to some outside alien presence, it's still a specific number of our years old to us and finding that number out is a valuable thing. Time, as you said, is a construct of humanity in the way that we measure it but time as a function of entropy in the universe is not a construct, nor is it meaningless. Even if we are in some VL computer, it's still life to us and really, it doesn't matter whether we're in a computer or not.
I'm not trying to bash you or anything, far from it. Anybody who really researches things like God and life is a-ok in my book. I'm just espousing some views of my own.
In respone to #242 chron.
You just walked into a wall. I challenge you to 'prove' anything. You can only prove something to your own satisfaction, never to anyone elses.
As far as I know you are simply a figment of my imagination and there is no way you can 'prove' otherwise. This discussion can not be about proof because there is no such thing.
Also, the gospels do not contradict themselves, I challenge you to show me where you believe they do and I will show you why you are wrong.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
I don't think anybody wants this story to turn into a 1500 post argument like the infamous Kansas evolution story but I have to say something about your mistaken beliefs about the universe. I'm no physicist but I am interested and I read alot.
First, no physicist I've ever read has ever said anything about the big bang happening from anything "about the size of a basketball." We have no idea what the thing was that spawned the BB was but physicists tend to agree that it was probably a singularity, a point of infinite density with no size as we think of the word, which are also thought to be at the center of black holes.
Second, "life" is not some mystical thing that had to spring in existence wheras before it didn't exist. Stuff just springing into existence only happens in the Bible. Life is all around us in so many different forms just on this planet that to say that life became us is silly, to use your word. "Life" is just a word that we use to talk about things that are not inanimate. Intelligent life, which is what you probably meant, is trickier to pin down but it still didn't just pop into existence, it's taken billions of years to get to us.
Last, even if the universe is only 1 nanosecond old to some outside alien presence, it's still a specific number of our years old to us and finding that number out is a valuable thing. Time, as you said, is a construct of humanity in the way that we measure it but time as a function of entropy in the universe is not a construct, nor is it meaningless. Even if we are in some VL computer, it's still life to us and really, it doesn't matter whether we're in a computer or not.
I'm not trying to bash you or anything, far from it. Anybody who really researches things like God and life is a-ok in my book. I'm just espousing some views of my own.
I've got to stop using the basketball crack... I can't remember where I heard that, but for some reason it just pops up as a good way to describe the Big Bang. I realize that it was not literaly the size of a basketball necessarily, but you can't prove that, so it's still just as valid. Also, you state that Life is all around us, yet before the universe existed where was life? Why was there a singularity? What caused the Singularity to ignite? When science can demonstrate to me how life can be created from nothingness I will rethink my position, until then I can not put much faith (You read that right, science is just as much faith as any other religion) in a theory with so many holes which is being presented as provable. At least my religion admits that it relies on faith in an unprovable constant.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
How much has 2000 years of a philosophy that espouses peace and love, but practices hate, intolerence, slavish obedience to dogma, active obstruction of those who refuse to follow them, - and even torture and murder - cost humanity?
Christians would do well to put aside their bibles and pick up some real history books, and learn just what it is that they are involved in. There is very little good in there.
Oh yes, those evil evil christians feeding thousands of poor and starving homeless people, sacrificing their lives to work for charity for the betterment of their fellow people, all of that nasty 'love thy neighbor' stuff is just terrible.
I'm so so sorry you look at Christianity ONLY by the evil that has been done in its name. Why not take a look at every other organization on earth and tell me that they are all pure and good and have done nothing harmful to anyone, ever...
Maybe try looking at both sides of the issue?
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
I also watched and enjoyed Toy Story 2, but the notion that it was original or had anything really meaningful to say is a comically naive viewpoint.
Toy Story 2 is about one simple thing: marketing. Christmas is impending. Can you think of any better merchandising plug than a movie about toys?
And also, what's with Katz justifying every movie as a "geek" film? Does he think we can't be interested in movies about technically ignorant, bland, or socially successful people?
-konstant
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Science is fallible
It sure is. But we admit it so that the failings don't become blockages to new learning. When one scientist says the Big Bang happened from a thing the size of a basketball, another can say "We don't know that" and then they can go off and find the truth of the situation later. When one religious person (my father for a close-to-home example) says "Fags are going to hell" I can't say "We don't know that" and go about trying to prove him wrong. He won't listen, nor is his position provable in any way.
When you look back at the history of christianity, it's clear that the amount of evil greatly, greatly outnumbers the good.
In fact, it's only recently that we've been seeing any real "christian" acts coming out of christians - probably because technology has raised their standard of living to the point where charity is feasible.
For every Mother Theresa, there's a Torquemada. For every starving poor man fed, a thousand tortured and slaughtered.
"Love they neighbor" indeed.
Hmmm... I don't see that at all. For every crusade against the 'Heathens' there was one against poverty. For every Torquemeda there is a mother Theresa, and for every thousand tortured and slaughtered are another thousand fed and clothed.
Non christians do terrible things, christians do terrible things. We're all human, we're all fallible. How many starving people has your family fed? How many times do you stop on the side of the road to help out a stranded motorist?
Good will is not limited to Christians, and neither is malice.
Kintanon
Remember, Christians are people too.
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Dante and Randall are in this (Dante was a reporter, Randall worked at the gun store), but I'm sure you saw that
Dante himself wasn't in it, per say. It was the same actor, as well as the same actor who played suitor #3, Gill Hicks in Mallrats He's played a different member of the Hicks family each time (Dante and Gill are supposedly cousins; I'm not sure of the reporter's relation).
It sure is. But we admit it so that the failings don't become blockages to new learning. When one scientist says the Big Bang happened from a thing the size of a basketball, another can say "We don't know that" and then they can go off and find the truth of the situation later. When one religious person (my father for a close-to-home example) says "Fags are going to hell" I can't say "We don't know that" and go about trying to prove him wrong. He won't listen, nor is his position provable in any way.
I can disprove it. If he is a Christian I can show him the specific passages in the Bible which proclaim that God will not deny ANYONE entrance into heaven. I know several Christian homosexuals, I personally don't think homosexuality is right (Mostly on a biological level) but I understand that it doesn't make them evil. They have done what the bible says they must do in order to go to heaven, above and beyond that they are also good people. If you bother to find out about the religion you are bashing you may be able to start proving loud mouthed fundies wrong by showing them a few lines of scripture.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Religion is a very vague word.
It is my belief that God exists, that Jesus Christ was his son, that because Christ died and was reborn I can say a brief, sincere prayer, and I will be able to enter into heaven. In order to show this I attempt to live a good life and live in a manner I believe Christ would approve of. I'm not always capable of this because I am human.
Now, what I believe starts off with a strait decleration that it is all about FAITH, they tell you that it can not be demonstrated or proven, you can not see God, you can not touch him or hear his voice directly. They say that they BELIEVE it is the truth. I believe it is the truth, but I will not tell you it IS the truth, because no one can know that.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
I submitted this as a "Ask Slashdot" feature, but it didn't get posted. Since Dogma got mentioned here, I figured I'd ask away.
Yesterday on NPR's Fresh Air, Terry Gross interviewed Kevin Smith. (You'll eventually be able to listen to the show in RealAudio format here in 28.8 or ISDN bitrates.) In one of his responses, Kevin roughly said: "I'm hoping to reintroduce spirituality to a whole generation of people whose last experience with religion [ed: and/or spirituality] was when their parents stopped dragging them to church." So -- the question goes out -- have you explored your spiritual and/or religious side since you were a child? What was the end result?
BTW, I distinguish between spirituality and religion. Spirituality is a personal set of beliefs which deal with metaphysics, the nature of the world around you, Gods and/or Goddesses (or the distinct lack thereof), and your interaction with those individuals and forces. Religion is an extension of humanity to bring together multiple people who have, roughly, the same spiritual beliefs, and generally imposes a further set of man-made rules (dare I say dogma?) on its practitioners.
"But always she's the spectre of uncertainty I first endured, then faded, then embraced..."
I've said it before and I'll say it again, just because it says so in a book, any book, does not make it true or false. This is another great thing about science, no one position is ever held as the end-all-be-all truth of things until it is proven over and over again.
I never bash religion. I don't like it but I don't bash it. I try to explain the virtues of science but I believe bashing a differing position is never the way to explain why your position is good. This is why the creationist movement (to use an example of what I'm talking about, not necessarily because of our recent discussion) is so weak, they consistantly fail to show the strengths of their views, they just bash evolution. That's never the way to do things.
True.
I wasn't saying that Christianity is necessarily true, though I have come to believe that it is. I am pointing to what I believe is some relevant evidence that this person may not have considered, and to point to a place to do further research.
If you come to a conclusion based soley on your own small sphere of knowledege without making consious efforts to see things from all sides and hunt down evidence from other researchers and on your own, you have made a conclusion on flakey grounds. And a decision with all the posible ramifications of your religion/worldview, I believe it is something that is worth researching fully from every angle you can before making a declaration, and always be aware that there is a huge amount of evidence in many directions you will never have the time or brainpower to decipher. However, we must look for the most convincing answer in wierd places as well as the ones that look comfortable to us.
Your post includes the notion of absolute truth, which shows some of your bias already. There are many such concepts that must be considered as evidence in our quest also.
To sum all this up, our lives are lived by hypothesis, and to cling to our belief without research and examanation is rediculous. I wish to point to research I believe is enlightining.
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
Hilarious. So where did your omnipotent being (aka "God") come from? An even bigger cosmic coincidence?
I believe the odds are better that we came into existence "randomly" rather than a "supreme being" came into existence randomly and created us. I will certainly admit that I may not know how we came about and am happy to continue searching for a better explanation. When I find one, I'll let you know... oh wait, you wouldn't listen anyway.
A religious person is simply one who will question all other theories except their own.
Your idea of creation has a chronological framework, ours does not. God was, is, and will be. Time is affects God no more than gravity or another other force. I can't even explain the way God exists in realtion to time in words very well, but I'll try.
Reality, existence, the whole shebang, exists in 1 point called 'now' this is the only existence. We provide ourselves a reference point because 'now' changes, so we as humans need some way to measure this change. So we picked a random event (The way the earth and sun move in relation to each other) and divided it up and now we measure things in increments of that. But it is meaningless. We can only say what is now, not what will be or what was. God exists outside of all of this, or we exist within God, however you want to put it. Hmm, maybe I can express it better like this, Time is a function of God.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Hah, there have been no shortage of crazies and loonies throughout history willing to die for their beliefs. Remember Jim Jones, or more recently, the "Heaven's Gate" cult?
And as for "the apostles maneuvered and manipulated events in such a way as to make prophesies become fulfilled" they didn't have to manipulate anything; they were recording the events. However they chose to write it, well, that's how it happened.
What proof have you that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, besides the Gospels? Got his birth certificate handy?
And where, explicitly, is it prophisised that Jesus would die by crucifixion?
Check the Census records taken at that time.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
I've said it before and I'll say it again, just because it says so in a book, any book, does not make it true or false. This is another great thing about science, no one position is ever held as the end-all-be-all truth of things until it is proven over and over again.
I never bash religion. I don't like it but I don't bash it. I try to explain the virtues of science but I believe bashing a differing position is never the way to explain why your position is good. This is why the creationist movement (to use an example of what I'm talking about, not necessarily because of our recent discussion) is so weak, they consistantly fail to show the strengths of their views, they just bash evolution. That's never the way to do things.
I fail to see how basing your belief on what a human who is alive now tells you is more valid than basing it on what a human who was alive 2000 years ago tells you. Evolution deserves to be bashed because it doesn't work, it's got holes bigger than christianities by far.
Also, you can not prove a negative, hence you can not prove that there is No God.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
I fail to see how basing your belief on what a human who is alive now tells you is more valid than basing it on what a human who was alive 2000 years ago tells you. Evolution deserves to be bashed because it doesn't work, it's got holes bigger than christianities by far.
Also, you can not prove a negative, hence you can not prove that there is No God.
I base my ideas on the work of many humans working together to discover truths about the world. That's my point.
If you believe evolution has holes, the point of science is to try to prove those holes exist and fix the theory or find a new theory. Every single person I've talked to who said they were for a competing theory to evolution only turned out to want to show what their ignorance of the theory saw as holes. They never actually show evidence for anything.
I would never try to prove there isn't a God, just as I wouldn't want to waste my time trying to prove unicorns don't exist.
I need only to site two examples:
o The Last Action Hero
o Jingle All the Way
I rest my case...
Jordan.
These people are a serious problem, and I just wish sometimes that other Christians would realize that the biggest threat to Christianity is not attacks from without (if Christians behave as decent people, other people will like them and not buy such slanders) but this kind of behaviour within. It is a real, serious problem and it needs to be addressed. Back when I lived up north (in a mostly Catholic suburb) I tended to believe that this was media bias against Christians and that they just showed a few crazies who were spoiling things for everyone else. But, and my personal experiences may indeed be just a nasty series of coincidences, I've become convinced that the crazies are a serious problem. You don't understand, I'm afraid of some of these people on my campus, afraid of physical violence if I draw their attention in the wrong way. And no one called a Christian should ever inspire that kind of feeling in others.
Amphigory, I apologize for lumping you in with them (in some of my previous posts), but things have been seriously bad lately. I can't pretend I'm as religious as my brother (I was an altar boy, but that was long ago), but I do still take my faith seriously.
P.S. I never read the E-mail you sent me, I was afraid.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Therefore, we can expect some people to keep readjusting their schedule for the Apocalypse until 2033.
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
The Catholic Church collected (and distributed) alms for the poor on a regular basis throughout the middle ages.
Granted, there have been some unsavory episodes in Christian history, but your hypothesis is just plain not founded in fact.
-- Slashdot sucks.
Prior to Christian influence, people were commonly killed by exposure. Or being fed alive to lions. The poor were commonly regarded as nothing but a liability.
You complain about how much evil has been done since Christianity? Well how much was done before it?! You seem to be suffering under the misapprehension that, prior to Christianity, the world was a happy place.
So, let me ask you this: is the culture that grew out of Christianity, the United States is the epitome of it, better or worse than the average world culture? Be specific please. And if you want to point out some of the evils done in Western culture, please point out how other cultures were better.
I think you will find that the heavily Christian influenced western culture that has spread to the world was and is far ahead of most other available cultures.
-- Slashdot sucks.
I'm convinced that `99 will go down in history as the year that turned out the most original, well made, moving movies EVER.
Several of the Movies you listed were from 98 - Pvt Ryan, and Shakespeare in Love already won Oscars for '98.
Even if all the films you listed were from 99', 1939 woul still be the best BY FAR .
Wizard of Oz
Gunga Din
Gone With The Wind
Beau Geste
Stagecoach
Drums Along The Mowhawk
Goodbye Mr. Chips
Hell's Kitchen
Hound of The Baskervilles
Hunchback of Notre Dame
I Take This Woman
Man in The Iron Mask
Mr. Smith Goes To Washington
Ninotchka
Of Mice and Men
Young Mr. Lincoln
There has never been, nor is it likely there ever will be a year in cinema to match 1939.
Clerks
Loved = 5 liked =4 ok = 3 disliked = 1 hated = -1
Mall Rates
Loved = 2 Liked = 3 Ok = 3 disliked = 3 Hated = 1
Chasing Amy
loved = 5 liked = 4 ok = 3 diskliked = 2 hated = 1
Just give me your final score
And why does Christianity change lives? You may not have seen it, but I have. It changes people, from the inside out. Sometimes it takes years, but once someone makes a decision for Christ, they are never the same.
The gospels idiosyncracies are the best evidence for their truth.
-- Slashdot sucks.
The matrix does make you think... just... not very much.
"You know what it really reminds me of? Tasty wheat. did you ever eat Tasty Wheat?"
"no, but technically nether did you.
"I know, but that's exactly my point, exactly. See how do the machines really know what tasty wheat tasted like? Maybe they got it wrong. Maybe what I think tasty wheat tasted like actually tastes like, ahh, oatmeal, or tuna fish.
That makes you wonder about a lot of things. You take chicken for example, maybe they couldn't figure out what to make chicken taste like, witch is why chicken tastes like everything. And maybe they couldn't figure out...."
"Shut up, mouse"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Electricity has many effects which I can detect. So does wind. God does
... You will find
not.
> 1. Man's Inherent Moral Nature
(a) Read Axelrod's _Evolution_of_Cooperation_, and study the interated
Prisoner's dillema. Basically, if you live in a society with some good
people, it's to your advantage to be good, as long as you learn to
recongize the evil bastards. Evolution would reinforce any tendancy this
way.
> 2. Prophicies fufilled
Is Jesus's name Ishmael? I've heard that section of the Bible quoted
frequently as prophecy. When you get a thousand pages of text and you
get to chose which parts are poetry and which prophecy, it's not that
hard get a nice set of fufilled prophecies. Combined with a nice tendancy
to selectively remember details of events to make the fit what you want
(which is even for honest people) (especially for recollections written
down years after the events) that the apostles probably fell prey, and
it doesn't make for great evidence. Asimov's Guide to the Bible is
an interesting viewpoint on prophicy in the bible.
> 3. His actions in my life
Go talk to some muslims. Or some buddists. or some
they can talk about how their god(s)/belief(s) affected them. I can
talk about Lucy (my god's actions) in my life, and I don't even
believe in her existance.
> the bible is historically accurate
One word: Noah. With modern knowledge, it's obvious that the Genesis
can't be literally interpreted.
--
David Starner
Will there be less flames there than here on /.?
-nme!
PS I (Personally) really liked David Lee Roth, but the specific example of an evil Van Halen song was 'Best of Both Worlds' (on 5150, right?), so it looks like I'll be seeing you in hell. What a way to go.
Bully for Arnold if he's found some faith in his life. Really. But he didn't need to share.
I had some problems with that bit too. The third sentence seems to contradict the first. It could have been worded better, but I think I get what Katz is trying to say. He's saying that End Of Days is a stinky movie, and one reason for that (among many) is that Arnold seems to be promoting his newfound faith rather than just playing a role.
IMHO, sharing one's faith is not the problem. It's human nature. People find something they like, something that brings them happiness, and they want to share it with others. That's not necessarily a bad thing. What sometimes is bad is the way in which this sharing is done. Beating people over the head with it is not the right way to go about it.
I don't understand. What's wrong with showing the positive, uplifting side of faith in a movie? You don't seem to have a problem with a movie that purportedly criticizes faith (Dogma).
Showing the positive, uplifting side of faith is fine (IMHO - I can't speak for Katz). But I don't think that's what End Of Days is doing. Did you read the review? It didn't sound like a positive uplifting movie at all. Oh Well.
**On the other hand, maybe you could accept organized religion on the basis of your experience with Pentecostals. After all, I would hardly call most Pentecostal churches "organized" *grin* ***
No, it was very organized, we had softball leagues and everything. *rimshot*
-nme!
PS but seriously, thanks for sharing your opinion, which I found to be very interesting. peace out.
Will there be less flames there than here on /.?
Absolutely!
PS I (Personally) really liked David Lee Roth, but the specific example of an evil Van Halen song was 'Best of Both Worlds' (on 5150, right?), so it looks like I'll be seeing you in hell. What a way to go.
Supposedly the band (with both Sammy Hagar and David Lee Roth) will be putting on a perpetual performance in hell, in the Fire and Brimstone Ampitheatre [*] at the corner of Beelzebub Lane and Pestilence Avenue. See you there! No need to bring a lighter.
:-)
[*] Hell has adopted British spellings, such as "theatre" and "cheque". The use of the euro as currency is still under consideration.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Look: as evidenced by this thread, Christians often take a lot of flack for what we believe. Do you think there would still be so many Christians if we didn't find some kind of evidence for it? And, frankly, since you have apparently not done the lab work, have not tried the experiment of faith, you have no right to an opinion. Just as the physicists at the beginning of the 20th century who knew relativity was false without studying it had no right to an opinion.
-- Slashdot sucks.
Saying "what took God so long to create the universe" is absurd: it's like asking "why didn't you make that painting the size of the whole planet". The answer is that God made the world the rightsize for God's purposes.
-- Slashdot sucks.
Um, I don't think so. There are a great many communities in the US where Catholics are held in relatively low regard. Consider John F. Kennedy's race for President -- there were several public grumblings about whether he would be loyal to the United States or to the Pope.
Questioning Catholicism is a popular American sport. Now, questioning the Baptists or Lutherans...
No right to an opinion about religion? Ha. I know more about religion than most so-called religious people I know.
Do you think that agnostics/athiests have it any easier in this country? That's exactly why I choose not to outright bash other people's beliefs but to discuss things with them. I may not believe what you believe but actually I have a lot of respect for the way you espouse your beliefs in your previous posts, Amphigory.
And yes, I believe that even if there could be any less evidence for what you believe, that there would still almost as many Christians. That's because the point isn't evidence. The point is belief and faith, which need no evidence and are often strongest in the total absence of evidence. People need something to believe in, whether it's an almighty father figure or a thunder god or a trickster coyote or just themselves, as I believe.
God, I hated that movie, and I thought the thing was, at least Denise Richards tried to act intelegent. Elizabeth's character was a complete bimbo!
Nothing in that movie made sense....
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Your post was one of the most intresting, insiteful, and really not-boring thing I think I've ever read in my life! Thank you 'azatoth'!
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
For some reason all CGI looks incredibly hoaky once it gets to TV.
And animatronics, and stop gap animation don't? that's rediculs. Just beacuse you have some werid problem with it dosn't mean that everyone does.
CGI has the ability to look *entirely* real, if its done right. You'll probably be able to tell for a while now, but things like toy-story would have been imposible with out it. Yes, they could have used hand draw animation, but that would have been boring.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
The Big Bang, the theory that a piece of extremely dense matter about the size of a basketball spontaneously exploded to form the universe as we know it, then this universe that was devoid of life at the time spontaneously generated some form of life which eventually became us, is pretty damn silly sounding to me.
Well, first of all, life didn't start immediately after the big bang. In fact the idea of the 'big bang' has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution, or the creation of life (ambiogenisis, I think). You can believe in any of the 3 that you like, ambiogenisys is dependant on evolution, but evolution isn't dependent of Ambiogenisys. The big bang dosn't need any of them
It would be possible for a 'god' to create the universe, and then for evolution to take place.
So, lets say you disagree with the 'scientific explanation for life', and you say its 'ridicules' this is probably because you don't understand biology. There is no difference between living matter, and non-living matter. Life is just an extremely long chemical reaction in 'normal' matter. Nothing special.
And, as far as Pascal's wager goes, what if you belive in the wrong god? And end up in hell? I mean, if you can believe in one god, then what makes others wrong, hrm? Then you'd be screwed.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I think you will find that the heavily Christian influenced western culture that has spread to the world was and is far ahead of most other available cultures.
I belive I could spread my culture around the world pretty quickly if I out tech'd everyone and I was able to rape the planet and turn most places into colonial 'slave nations' (controled by a central government in europe). The reason 'western culture' spread so much in the past 500 years or so, is beacuse it was shoved down the throats of everywhere else.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Why was there a singularity?
:)
Don't know
What caused the Singularity to ignite?
Don't know.
And, current Big Bang theory predicts that we will never know the answers to these questions. If we ever figure it out, we'll have to change the theory to predict that we will be able to figure it out. Ain't science grand?
Anyway. This is how we got the big bang theory. We looked at what was going on. Everything in the Universe, at least that we can see, is moving apart. That means that at some point, it was probably all in one spot. Then used our laws of physics to try and figure out what it would have been like.
Actually, if you'd read up on it, you would see that we only have a clue back to a few milliseconds after the big bang, what happened before that is a mystery, and we will never know.
The idea that Santa Clause exists explains why presents are there every year, a child might believe it, because there parents said he does. However after a while, a child will start to notice things, like the 'holiday shopping season' and the fact that there parents are hiding Christmas presents around the house. The religious view would simply say, "Santa exists!" and possibly add, "The rest of the stuff was only put there to test your faith," whereas the Scientific view would be "Well, there's this 'holiday shopping season', and me and my little sister are always finding our Christmas presents hidden around the house, so mom and dad are probably buying them at the store."
Now, clearly the scientific view is correct in this case, but really its no different then the idea of Christian creation. The bible says 'X', and therefore you believe it (I'm assuming you're a creationist), there's no reason to believe it, other then that the bible (witch you're parents said was true). The scientific view says "Well, this is what's going on now, so it was probably going on before, and the most reasonable explanation we can think of, based on what we can see is 'X'" To anyone coming to the situation with no pretenses, the Christian idea is no less ludicrous then the One about Santa clause.
If I were to tell you, that despite all the evidence, that I still believed in Santa, and that you should to because you never really know is idiotic. But, is it really any different than 'Pascal's wager'? Oh, and the only thing science says about the 'big bang' is that it's the most reasonable explanation for the observable events.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Person A says:
Invest with us! You're guarantied a 200% return on investment in one year! Without fail!
Person B says:
Well, here's the data, and here's the Mathematical formulas we used to generate it, oh and here's the mathematical profs of those formulas. Here are the SEC filings, and Here is the financial analysis. I think We can achieve a 20%-40% Return on investment, of course we don't really know, since no one can predict the future.
I take it you would invest with person A.
So instead I should take the word of a bunch of people who admit they aren't exactly sure what's going on and believe that is the be all end all of truth? How can you say that when several hundred years ago scientists believed the sun revolved around a flat earth? Science is fallible. It wouldn't be the end of the world if I was incorrect about the creation of the universe, or even if I thought that the sun revolved around earth. You can see the sun going around the earth every day, and it seems reasonable. It's only when you look very closely at the paths of the stars in the sky that you realize what's actually happening. Perhaps our Ideas of the big bang are wrong, does it really matter? No, as I've stated before, once you look at the idea of god without pretense (I should state that I originally believed in god, but the more I thought about it, the less likely it seemed, I never found anything particularly wrong with Christianity, it just seemed silly) it seems ridicules. So, even in the big bang theory were wrong, it still doesn't mean that the Bible is right. How the universe got started, once we rule out the hand of god, has no impact on my life.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
The point is a value judgement between different cultures. People are fond of criticizing Christians record: well, I am asking that you put that into historical context. That you compare the "atrocities" which you lay at Christianities feet (unjustly in many cases; fairly in some) to those occuring in non-Christian cultures.
-- Slashdot sucks.
1) Moral nature:
Proponents of game theory would say that we do *nothing* which we do not believe benefits us. This seems as reasonable as everyone having a 'moral' nature. Stimulus/response consitioning and a little indoctrination can easily account for people's behavior.
2) Prophecies:
You're using defective methods to calculate this...
You're looking at the chance of eight *seperate* predictions being true and then basing the chance of some of a huge number coming true as being proof of something.
If I make a huge number of predictions, no doubt I can get some right. Do we then multiple the chances of those predictions being true together to see how unlikely this is without factoring in the number of predictions?
A lot of the things you mention can be easily guessed. The reaction of people to someone claiming to be the son of god doesn't seem hard to guess. Ditto with the likely method of death if that prophet is in an empire hostile to prophets and with a well established method of killing people.
So, these prophecies are quite vague, not that suprising, and linked (if his reception is such, his death will probably be such, which is really one prediction in two parts,) but there are enough of them that you could probably prove that anyone was the prophet.
Way to go with the stats there. Now it's up to 68.2% of statistics being made up on the spot or otherwise invalid.
If you believe that belief in a supreme deity is silly and juvenile then I challenge you to espouse to us the correct notion of how the universe came into being, how we came into being, why things are as they are.
Ok, tell us.
We'll work backwards.
God made us.
God made the world.
God made the universe.
What made god?
You aren't offering any solutions.
The difference is that you aren't willing to look for solutions.
The big bang is just a wild guess and while it caught on with the layman, not all (many?) serious physicists are think it's likely. But, at least they're looking for the real answer.
So, get busy telling us where god came from.
I don't pretend to know the age of the universe because time is a meaningless construct of humanity.
Really? Before mankind, everything happened at once?
Stick a cat in a box where it can't be observed and it's not that it's neither dead not alive, but that it's simultaneously dead, alive, a kitten, mulch, and all other things?
Ummmm.. I think you need to rethink that a bit.
As far as we know the universe is only 1 nanosecond old and all of our memories were created as is by some alien computer as a Virtual Life experiment.
"As far as we know" seems to imply that it's as likely that's true as anything else.
Not at all. Just because we can't completely disprove something doesn't mean that it's happening.
I have very Agnostic leanings, but following Pascal's wager (Which I believe to be an excellent model of why scientific logical people should believe in some kind of god )
This being "There might or might not be a god. If there isn't, being xian is just a waste of a little time, if there is, it's saved you from hell, so be xian just to be safe." right?
Why not look at it the other way?
There might be an xian god who is exactly as the contradictory bible describes him. He may decide to torture you for eternity for not following the rules he expects you to hear about and read in some book. Properly following these rules can take a good portion of your time and prevent you from doing many things you might like to do. You can suck up for the rest of your life, on the off chance that the whole story is true, or live your life as you see fit, getting the most enjoyment out of it you possibly can.
Personally, I'm not into long shots, so I don't play the lottery and I don't believe in god.
and my own research on the subject I've come to believe in a more or less traditional Christian view of life,death, God and everything.
How, pray tell, can you 'research' something that you are supposed to take on faith?
By praying and receiving an answer? There are drugs which can cure that you know...
There's a simpler explanation for the growth of western civ. Frontiers are where the innovation happens.
Sure, you can pick some holes in it. But no more than I can pick in your idea that christianity caused it.
Simple enlightened self interest would dictate many of the 'christian' values. Taking care of the poor simply prevents them from deciding to even out the monetary situation with force.
And, pointing out the evils of some christians isn't designed to make anything else look better by comparison, or to invalidate the good things done by others. The idea is to point out that people can do nice things without being christian, and do nasty things despite being christian, thus being christian doesn't mean a lot about someone's character.
If it's possible to experience the sun and earth in different positions relative to each other, then they don't all happen at the same time.
... nevermind. But you bash people who are trying to find out what happened because they don't know, and yet you subscribe to insane theories.
Sure, our calendar, and our days, are arbitrary to an alien, as would theirs be to us. But that doesn't mean that time doesn't exist, that all things happen at once.
God was, is, and will be.
Wow. You must have put a lot into that answer.
What a cop out.
If god can always exist, then why can't the universe just always have existed without him?
This is funny. You don't even realize how silly you sound. You're completely out to lunch, pulling perpetual god theories out of
If you don't post a concrete answer as to where god came from, then you might as well go away. You're telling people they're wrong because they don't have all the answers, so put up or shut up.
One word: Noah. With modern knowledge, it's obvious that the Genesis
can't be literally interpreted.
Noah wrote about the entire world being flooded, well to him the entire world was the area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, which IS prone to massive flooding, and especially was then. Also, it speaks of never having rained before, because of the desert climate it is quite possible that in living memory it had not rained in that area. So it IS possible to literally interpret Genesis if you give it a few seconds of thought.
Secondly:
(a) Read Axelrod's _Evolution_of_Cooperation_, and study the interated
Prisoner's dillema. Basically, if you live in a society with some good
people, it's to your advantage to be good, as long as you learn to
recongize the evil bastards. Evolution would reinforce any tendancy this
way.
Why should I trust in the word of a human with an agenda? What makes HIS opinion or view more valid than anyone elses? Are you suggesting that I should believe something which goes against all of my own research and knowledge just because someone you agree with said it?
While you may believe that random chance is all that is to blame for the universe existing, but some of us have better ideas.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
*cough*
... well, my intention is not to criticize -- but to present my reality. In my plane of consciousness, the existence of god is irrelevant.
You could call me an athiest.
The day I lost my religion, was the day I lost the ability to magically conjure up hope through gods love.
I do sometimes admire religion, as it offers the follower the ability to believe whatever they want through faith.
I do value what religion has given me and do not question its importance -- but I have recovered and outgrown the damage done and the crutch that was needed as a result.
Instead, I have chosen to build on the fundamental value system presented to me in my childhood. No cloudyness; No lost thoughts. No vulnerability through the inability to formulate skepticism in faith. Just a sense of my worth in this world, and a moral system based on fairness and real world actions and consequences.
Religious indifference to me is a breath of fresh air. Then again, I do envy the effect faith and the denial of this reality created. God did exist. But now he's dead and I'm not prepared to make the sacrifices to bring him back. But that was then, and this is now. I think I kind of prefer science. I base decisions on rationale through experience and harder facts instead of
Do I have a point? No. If i could prove there isn't a god, would I? Nope. Religion doesn't hurt anyone. Opression, hate, self-righteousness, stupidity, and lies, among other things hurt people.
Ok, answer this one....
If our universe had a beginning, and "God" is eternal....what took him so long to create the universe?
If you believe that at all.
What do you mean 'long'? Are you trying to apply time as a way to measure something God did? time is a function of God, God does not exist within time, it exists within Him. Hence there was no time before the universe was created, and to God there is no time, Humans are the only things which have time, and we only use it as a way to measure how things are different in this Now than they are in the Now we remember.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Well, first of all, life didn't start immediately after the big bang. In fact the idea of the 'big bang' has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution, or the creation of life (ambiogenisis, I think). You can believe in any of the 3 that you like, ambiogenisys is dependant on evolution, but evolution isn't dependent of Ambiogenisys. The big bang dosn't need any of them
It would be possible for a 'god' to create the universe, and then for evolution to take place.
So, lets say you disagree with the 'scientific explanation for life', and you say its 'ridicules' this is probably because you don't understand biology. There is no difference between living matter, and non-living matter. Life is just an extremely long chemical reaction in 'normal' matter. Nothing special.
And, as far as Pascal's wager goes, what if you belive in the wrong god? And end up in hell? I mean, if you can believe in one god, then what makes others wrong, hrm? Then you'd be screwed.
Ok, first about Pascal's Wager, that's where the Faith part comes in.
Second about the big bang and evolution, if you don't believe in the Big Bang (ie, you believe God created the universe) but you don't believe that God created life, then you have a problem...
Ambiogenisys is at least as ridiculous sounding as anything in Christianity. Micro-Evolution occurs, is demonstrable, and is accepted by pretty much everyone, Macro evolution on the other hand is a load of bullshit. I don't care what you do to a mouse it ain't gonna grow wings, develop hollow bones, feathers, and a hard beak, and fly away. Just not gonna happen.
You can believe that life is 'nothing special' if you want to, that's your own business. But I will continue to believe that you are a bit soft in the head for thinking that way, just as you'll continue to believe I'm still soft in the head for believing the way I do.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
The Free Software Foundation!!!!!!!!!!!
Heh, ok, you got me there... But they are a relatively new organization, I'm sure they'll screw someone over eventually!! >:)
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Don't know.
:)
And, current Big Bang theory predicts that we will never know the answers to these questions. If we ever figure it out, we'll have to change the theory to predict that we will be able to figure it out. Ain't science grand?
Anyway. This is how we got the big bang theory. We looked at what was going on. Everything in the Universe, at least that we can see, is moving apart. That means that at some point, it was probably all in one spot. Then used our laws of physics to try and figure out what it would have been like.
Actually, if you'd read up on it, you would see that we only have a clue back to a few milliseconds after the big bang, what happened before that is a mystery, and we will never know.
The idea that Santa Clause exists explains why presents are there every year, a child might believe it, because there parents said he does. However after a while, a child will start to notice things, like the 'holiday shopping season' and the fact that there parents are hiding Christmas presents around the house. The religious view would simply say, "Santa exists!" and possibly add, "The rest of the stuff was only put there to test your faith," whereas the Scientific view would be "Well, there's this 'holiday shopping season', and me and my little sister are always finding our Christmas presents hidden around the house, so mom and dad are probably buying them at the store."
Now, clearly the scientific view is correct in this case, but really its no different then the idea of Christian creation. The bible says 'X', and therefore you believe it (I'm assuming you're a creationist), there's no reason to believe it, other then that the bible (witch you're parents said was true). The scientific view says "Well, this is what's going on now, so it was probably going on before, and the most reasonable explanation we can think of, based on what we can see is 'X'" To anyone coming to the situation with no pretenses, the Christian idea is no less ludicrous then the One about Santa clause.
If I were to tell you, that despite all the evidence, that I still believed in Santa, and that you should to because you never really know is idiotic. But, is it really any different than 'Pascal's wager'? Oh, and the only thing science says about the 'big bang' is that it's the most reasonable explanation for the observable events.
A couple of things:
1. My parents did not tell me the bible was true, while I was growing up I was presented with a lot of different religious beliefs and theories. I picked the one that I felt was right.
2. I can watch my parents put presents under the tree, there is no unknown.
Now, you say that the universe is expanding away from something, all well and good. But that is meaningless. We only know that it appears to be expanding away from something based on factors we are able to observe and interpret. We still have no idea what actually happened and never will.
But pure accident is not, to me, enough to explain it. It's like asking your parents 'Why is the sky blue' and they say 'It just is'. That's what science is telling you. You are asking 'Why is the universe here' and they are saying 'It just is'.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
It wouldn't be the end of the world if I was incorrect about the creation of the universe, or even if I thought that the sun revolved around earth. You can see the sun going around the earth every day, and it seems reasonable. It's only when you look very closely at the paths of the stars in the sky that you realize what's actually happening. Perhaps our Ideas of the big bang are wrong, does it really matter? No, as I've stated before, once you look at the idea of god without pretense (I should state that I originally believed in god, but the more I thought about it, the less likely it seemed, I never found anything particularly wrong with Christianity, it just seemed silly) it seems ridicules. So, even in the big bang theory were wrong, it still doesn't mean that the Bible is right. How the universe got started, once we rule out the hand of god, has no impact on my life.
So you picked the option that made you feel all warm and fuzzy and uncaccountable. To not believe anything at all is just a sign of laziness and intentional apathy. I have more respect for those who believe the earth was spawned by a giant chicken labled 'Trump Universe Farm' than those who believe nothing.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
I'm serious. Put up or shut up. I want to know when Christians, as Christians, killed 10 million people. The actions of a secular organization in a Christian country don't count. When did Christians do it?
When I post, I use specific examples. If you can't come up with a specific example to back up your contention, you have no point.
-- Slashdot sucks.
Hey, I had one whole paragraph that didn't have any abbreviations.
J:)
Oh well, no point in steering now.
Why is it so wrong for me to admit that I don't know!!!
I don't know how the universe was formed, I don't know how life on this planet started, and I admit it! And yet, some how that makes me a bad person WTF???
Why should it matter to me how the universe started? it has no impact on my life. It dosn't. I do belive in things, I belive in the goodness of humanity, I belive that you should do all you can to ease the suffering of another human. And, at, the very least, I belive that I don't know how the universe started.
You should have respect for people who belive that the earth was spawned by a giant chicken labled "Trump Universe Farm", beacuse that idea is no less stupid then the one presented in the bible.
I looked at the facts, and I looked at what I saw around me, And I made a desision. The truly lazy person is someone who never bothers to think for themselves. To call me lazy, beacuse I admit that I don't know somthing that is imposible to know is the absolute in arrogance.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
No, it`s a perfectly valid sentence, if slightly convoluted.
'It's ironic that "End Of Days" arrives in theaters the same day as the brilliantly conceived and executed "Toy Story 2," as original and technologically dazzling a film as "End of Days" is boring and ludicrous.'
I suspect that you got confused in the second half of the sentence. What it means is that the originality and technological brilliance of TS2 is quantitatively equal to the boredom and ludicrosity of EoD. An opinion on which I can make no comment, not having seen either film.