Sci-Fi is the Democrat's New Strategy

if there was a movie about d-day, and everything was history, but in one scene a man healed another man's ear by waving his hand at him, we would not call the movie a documentary, or historical fact. its just ludicrous that you people can call a representation of your faith a factual depiction of history. a movie where a man rises from the dead cannot be called true from a historical standpoint. you can say "i believe it, because i have faith in the irrational", but by no means can we say that historians agree that satan walked the streets and looked like a she-male.

this is not what the movie is! the movie shows a recovered and unscarred man after he rises from the dead! do not change the movie to make it seem like history. this is what i am telling you, the movie shows many instances of magic happening. healing, satan, evil satan baby things, a magical punishment bird attack on the other guy on the cross. THIS IS NOT HISTORY, IT IS YOUR IRRATIONAL FAITH. i think to cast the passion as a movie of facts, and not story of magic that you happen to believe in, is irresponsible. it is like if a roswell documentary didnt mention that UFO's are not proven to be aliens, but rather just gave the perspective of those who believed. it would be interesting, but not history or fact. to call the passion "historical truth" is nuts, and i doubt even mel gibson would make that claim.


oh and don't get me wrong, i know how ludicrous global warming is too, i have read the skeptical environmentalist. while, i eagerly await the movie "the day after tomorrow" i am well aware that it is dubious science to make claims about humans causing global warming.

sabanfan, while i know it is politically incorrect to refer to christianity as magic and wizardry, that is clearly what it is, in my opinion. i know there are politically correct lists of things you cannot mae fun of, but i ignore those lists.

 

Actually, Christians are one of the few groups of people that are fair game under the PC regime. Political correctness attempts to rectify past wrongs by scorning the Western religions (Judaism and Christianity) while giving Eastern religions (Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Shinto, Tao, etc., etc.) and secular humanism a free pass.

 

i give a free pass to no system of beliefs based on magic, but people are hypersensitive about it.

to me it seems like christianity gets a free pass. people in jail come forth and say they jesus touched them, and we want to give them a shorter sentence. athletes thank jesus, and nobody makes fun of them. we all say we will pray to jesus for this or that, and nobody says anything, even though praying for something is exactly equivalent to crossing your fingers, in terms of results.

my point here was that if i called astrology or woodoo silly, it would be ok, but not christianity, i am not allowed to call into question the magic of christianity. this is beside the point though. all i really wanted to say was that it annoys me when people brainwash each other by calling the passion movie "history".

 

Was this "magic" or "wizardry"?

 

Are you saying all events in the movie did not take place? You have picked out four items in a 2.5 hour movie and then somehow claim that it is not history and should not use this comparison against a fictional big budget hollywood movie which is not based in facts and also is about future events. Besides your view on the "magic" part of the Bible and the movie what else is wrong with both from a historical standpoint, specifically the NT and the time frame in movie? Are there any movies that are supposed to be about historical events and labeled as non-fiction that you are ok with because everyone agrees with every single part of the movie as being factual?

I would like to hear your opinion of what really did happen with Jesus and what he did and what happen to his body and why did he have such an impact on the world and so on instead of just using the "nuts" and "magic" argument. It is easy to call something "magic" or "nuts" that you do not wish to understand, but since you do not agree with free passes I think you should offer up what really did happen.

Also, it is utter BS to start a discussion with "i dont want to start alot of trouble" and then go on to call my beliefs and statements nuts, lies, cheap, and wrong.

 

no i am not claiming all the events in the movie did not take place. i am no historian, i really dont know how much of it took place, and i know that historians do not even agree.

think of any movie you consider to be a retelling of facts. now add to that movie a scene where a doctor fixes a man's ear by magically waving his hand. the movie is no longer factual. it is a story, an interpretation, not a history.

if i were to watch a biography of ben franklin, and ben were to mysteriously levitate in one scene, i would no longer believe the movie to be a historical interpretation. you cannot call a movie "historical fact" if a man resurrects from the dead unharmed three days after being brutally tortured and killed. people dont have brutal injuries and then magically they are erased.

i am trying to make you differentiate between your faith and history. by calling this movie history, you are opposing the billions of non-christians in the world who do not have faith. you cant tell us your faith is fact any more than a jew can tell you their faith proves that jesus what not the son of god. your beliefs are not the same as history. your beliefs are based on faith.

i am not jewish. but if i was, and i had your attitude, i could make a movie, where jesus was not the savior, and call it "historical fact". but it is a not a question of history, it is a matter of faith. if a jew says to you "it is a fact that jesus was not the son of god", would you argue with him? he believes what he says to be fact, but you do not. what is saying is a matter of his particular faith.

why does islam have such an impact on the world? why are there so many hindus? why are their people who believe in voodoo? why do people believe horoscopes? is it true because lots of people buy into it? why does mohammed have such an impact on the world? is it true because lots of people believe? surely mohammed must be the real prophet of allah, millions of people say it is so!

the fact is, had you been born in a different place, in a society that preaches different superstition, you would be just as adamant about another set of beliefs. its tribalist mentality. your beliefs in the irrational were told to you by your family, and your community, and would have been completely different had you been born somewhere else. had you been born to jewish parents, you would be taking my side about the passion not being factual. you have to escape the mindless tribalism of your birth.

i enjoyed the movie, i thought it was very well done. it was a personal interpretation of mel gibson's beliefs. if you have faith that these non-historical events occured, that is fine. but do not call the movie "factual", because it isnt.

as for sabanfan, and the world trade cross, i am glad you find it inspiring. but a cross is about as simple of a thing as you can possibly do with two items stuck together, and you can probably find thousands of them in basically every structure ever built. i wuld have been suprised if none of the busted up metal left after the destruction had not formed a lot of crosses. every vertical piece attacked to a horizontal piece makes a cross. symbols can hardly get any simpler.

 

some people have a non-scientific faith based view of global warming. you have a faith based view of jesus. i dont understand why you are even arguing. christians readily admit that their beliefs are not a matter of facts and history, but a matter of faith. am allowed to taunt the greenies and their reasonless faith, but not the christians?

 

OK. That's it. You're going to Hell.

 

Not necessisarily

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...item=2242007840

 

Do you provide a money back guarantee?