Interesting "Passion" Review

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-03-16 08:31am

Say what you will about the ARI people, but you have to admire the fact that they're one of the view groups to see the true nature of Christianity.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-03-16 08:44am

I like where he actually admitted at the end that most of the people going to watch The Passion of the Christ wouldn't get the message that we as humans are inherintly sinfull.

Sometimes I weep when I realise that with the Age of Enlightenment and the Renaissance we might be slipping backwards because of some fucked up fundie bullshit artists.

Isn't there anyway of segregating them off to a dumb farm somewhere?

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-03-16 10:23am

Crown wrote:Sometimes I weep when I realise that with the Age of Enlightenment and the Renaissance we might be slipping backwards because of some fucked up fundie bullshit artists.

You just have to develop your aussie apathy - we all have it. Repeat after me:

"Ah, she'll be right, mate." x 100.

Crown wrote:Isn't there anyway of segregating them off to a dumb farm somewhere?

No, but there was a Simpsons episode where all the Smart People went to colonise Mars, while all the Dumb People went to the Sun (they were told by the Smart people they were going to another planet). Perhaps someone will use this as "inspiration."

(I should mention that earth was doomed - that was the reason for the mass exodus)

Incidentally I liked that article. Short and to the point.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-03-16 04:45pm

Look, idiots criticizing fanatics! Its like Godzilla vs Mothra.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-03-16 05:12pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Look, idiots criticizing fanatics! Its like Godzilla vs Mothra.

Look! Its an unsupported assertion! After being at SD.net this long you should know to back up your opinions with reasons. If you have a problem with what the article said then come out and say what the problem is and why its a problem.

If you have a problem with the people who said it, then state why you don't "like" them and why. Some of us might not know why you have this opinion.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-03-16 05:55pm

Followers of the philosophy of Objectivism are typically idiots, because Objectivism is an idiotic philosophy.

The author claims that humans are perfect, which is understandable, because in Objectivism as long as you are concerned only with your own needs, nothing else matters.

The Albino Raven · Post by **The Albino Raven** » 2004-03-16 08:56pm

The main problem with the passion was the audience. It puts out a church message to christian practicers. It has no way of giving this message to those who don't practice, and since they don't practice anyway, it doesn't matter that they don't get the message. If you don't like the message, then don't see or support the movie. If you think that the american government is too religiously motivated, then try to fight that, and then go to iran or saudi arabia.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-03-16 08:59pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Followers of the philosophy of Objectivism are typically idiots, because Objectivism is an idiotic philosophy.

The author claims that humans are perfect, which is understandable, because in Objectivism as long as you are concerned only with your own needs, nothing else matters.

Calling Objectivism philosophy is an insult to philosophy. It's more of "Philosophy-esque."

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-16 09:51pm

Objectivism is just a nice-sounding self-selected name for what would be more properly termed "egotism". Its entire moral argument is "what's good for me is good for everyone".

It's not even entertaining to confront Randroids with examples of situations which prove this axiom wrong, because they will simply try to rationalize it with a series of audacious stolen-concept fallacies (stolen from real ethical systems, naturally).

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-03-16 09:55pm

I still think it was a good review though.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-16 09:58pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:I still think it was a good review though.

Agreed. It would be an ad-hominem fallacy to dismiss the review solely on the basis of the fact that it came from Randroids, particularly in a forum where people were recently commenting on how pleasantly surprised they were by a well-written article from Pat Buchanan.

The article did seem reasonable enough to me, but I've heard a lot of very similar sentiments expressed before.

The Albino Raven · Post by **The Albino Raven** » 2004-03-16 10:08pm

Teach man to regard himself as a loathsome, despicable being, and he becomes ripe for any mystical dictator, who will wield the whip that is supposed to make man atone for his "transgressions." Deprive man of self-esteem, teach him to spit in his face, and one paves the way for another Dark Ages.
But to oppose this conception of human nature, one must first come to understand that man—man at his best, man the rational, productive, selfish achiever—is a noble being.

This seems valid, but only if the person uses only the movie/its backers and not the rest of the New Testament as basis for their faith. Yes, many Christians believe that all mankind is responsible for the death of jesus, but those who do, if they believe the rest of scripture, believe that only God can atone the sins, since all men are sinners. Therefore, a dictator would call upon deaf ears, since the Christians would say that the dictator is as much of a sinner as they are. Furthermore, another interpretation of the movie is that Jesus died on the cross in order to atone for us. Yes, our sin is responsible for his death, but at the same he freely accepted the death, and did it out of love for mankind. So, people should feel empowered, not worthless.

Of course, if you don't believe any of the above, then it doesn't really matter, as you will be unaffected by the christian messages of the film.