End of Some Days, Beginning of Others 508
"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.
Personally... (Score:2)
End Of Days slamfest? (Score:2)
American Beauty (Score:3)
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.
Dogma (Score:3)
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.
Malkovich, malkovich malkovich. Malkovich! (Score:3)
"What is this power that Malkovich holds over us?"
---------------------------
Toy Story 2 -- still room to go (Score:2)
Movie delays... (Score:3)
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'?
Being Jon Katz (Score:2)
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.
Re:Personally... (Score:2)
Dogma's premise challenges blind faith; it encourages an active participation within a search for personal direction and religious theory. It certainly isn't Kafka's The Castle, or essay on organized religion by Lenin, but it certainly hits topics most of pop-American culture would shy away from. Challenging blind adherence to church dogma? Unheard of in this fairly close minded popular culture.
American Movie is another, very un pop-culture film. Quirky and touching, it has a human feel that the blair witch project could only have hoped for, and has a much more watchable plot (not to mention camera work.)
Failing to have seen it yet, or even a preview, I can;t realkly comment on it, but Being John Malcovich's plot, alone, seems quite distinct from typical 'pop-American' films, requiring some thought and interest by the viewers.
You seem to be dismissing some of these films, out of hand, and without any really strong arguyments. Geek films, I can't say, but some of them are quite intersting, and distinct from,typical pop culture.
TS2 and EOD (Score:3)
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:)
seen two of em. (Score:5)
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.
The new Age of Cinema (Score:2)
Kintanon
50's Regalia (Score:2)
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 gonna regret this... (Score:5)
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.
Dogma needed work (Score:2)
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.")
----
Princess Mononoke (Score:2)
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...
UMMM... (Score:2)
Go here [theavclub.com]for a better idea.
-nme!
Re:Toy Story 2 -- still room to go (Score:2)
i think realistic human animation is difficult. take a look at the human figure animation project [microsoft.com] at ms research. it's interesting.
(it seems motion capture is the best way to go now, i think. i am certainly not an expert here).
- palEOD vs Dogma (Score:2)
I agree .... and it's a 'geek film' .... (Score:2)
Re:American Beauty (Score:2)
The Green Mile is the best Stephen King book in a while, much in the easy-going storytelling style of Stand By Me. I'm looking forward to the movie.
Dogma seems suspect from what I've heard, sounds like Kevin Smith sould out a bit early. And I usually get my Christian bashing from South Park (BTW, last night's Christ and Santa singing a medley of Christmas songs in the first person was a ROTFL few minutes, "Away in a manger no crib for my bed." hehe)
Re:What's wrong with faith? (Score:2)
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
Bond (Score:2)
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.
----
Dogma (Score:2)
Re:Comes now the prophet (Score:2)
Kintanon
Dogma-- it was interesting, for sure... (Score:2)
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.
Re:No ticket? (Score:2)
Re:(Getting OT) Showing when? (Score:2)
Re:I'm gonna regret this... (Score:2)
It doesn't matter what Christian beliefs on the Second Coming, Armageddon, the Apocalypse, or whatever you want to call it really are. All that matters is that the popular perception of a Christian "End of Days" is that it should show up pretty soon now. Movie makers (with the noted exception of Dogma's Kevin Smith) are not theologians.
All that I read from Katz' comment was that, once the millenial time passes, popular interest in dramatic portrayals of apocalyptic events will fade, because popular interest in or belief in it will decline. Or, an apocalyptic event will have happened, rendering the making of movies moot. Just because it doesn't happen on New Years 2000 doesn't mean it is never going to, but it does mean that people will stop anticipating it quite so specifically.
This does not show that Katz has a poor understanding of Christianity, is anti-christian, or is attempting to foist an anti-christian philosophy or worldview on slashdot readers. I fail to understand why you chose to include a lengthy and irrelevent explanation of one version of Christian doctrine. Katz was talking about MOVIES.
gnfnrf
--
If I could think of something wittier to put here, BOY would you be laughing now.
Confused by the controversy (Score:2)
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!
The End of the World As We Know It (Score:2)
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.
Re:I'm gonna regret this... (Score:3)
I'm an Atheist, but I'd love to see more movies like The Prophecy, and I personally find the subject fascinating, much in the way I like Science Fiction or Fantasy. And I find myself agreeing with you on a lot of your points, (I saw a silly "Christian" rag yesterday espousing the "Jesus was fully God and fully man, but worthy of salvation as we are not, but will save us from our sins"... etc., etc., and I find evolution, genetics, dark matter, pokemon and invisible pink elephants much easier to believe in than that) so it's good to see a Christian trying to incorporate reason into theology. (St. Augustine did that too, and he also had some pretty liberal views about the world... I'm actually surprised he made it as a saint, considering.)
The Christian doctrine is more complex than most Christians give it credit for. I'm not convinced as to its internal consistency, and I hope it's not as complex as St. Augustine found it, because then, if I were concerned by it, I would have given up and started a simpler religion... And this has happened many times in Christianity, but I don't know if anyone has gotten it right. (I personally would side with the Unitarian Universalists, but that's not very Christian, except as Christian means Christ-like, respecting people, etc.)
And I think the real problem here is that *Hollywood* is confining their view of Christianity to "Jesus comes in y2k", much like they confine their view of hacking to "this video game controls the security system". And Katz is saying that after y2k, Hollywood won't have an excuse to drag out this tired old plot.
(of course, if they did some research, they could. Even if they continued their base-10, 2000 years obsession, they could observe that the date of Jesus' birth is widely disputed, (of course, this means that 2000 years has come and gone, better pick 2222 years or something, and do another Fifth Element-like movie! Yay!) or count from an event in a different calendar for whatever reason (that would make much more sense).
---
pb Reply or e-mail rather than vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Re:The End of the World As We Know It (Score:2)
Why is that disturbing? They are actually pretty decently written books, and interesting to boot. Also, they don't really point at 2000 as the end of the world. Try reading them, they aren't Asimov or Bradbury, but they are a nice hour long read apiece.
Kintanon
Don't regret it... (Score:2)
(yes, I did read the article [wired.com] at wired, and I'm still saying this)
Re:seen two of em. (Score:2)
Really?!?! Oh shit, I've got a lot of apologies to write then damnit...
Kintanon
"INFIDEL! BURN THE WITCH! BLASPHEMER! JIHAD! JIHAD!!!!!"
Run Lola Run (Score:4)
Amen and pass the oscar! (Score:2)
Re:I'm gonna regret this... (Score:2)
The problem with christians, as it were, is that the people who most people think of as 'christians' are the ones who go around proclaiming it loudly.
These are usually the people who are clinging to belief as a sort of life-raft for their identity and are not so concerned with the validity of those beliefs, as long as they feel like they belong.
The same thing seems to apply to Wiccans, Packer Fans, etc.
What I'm saying is: I can understand how you'd be annoyed by all this.
disclaimer: When I was young, I went to a Pentacostal Bible camp where they told me that I was going to hell for liking Van Halen (Pre- Sammy, of course) and that homosexuals weren't real people. My subsequent views of organized religion take all of that into account.
Also, I didn't proofread, I'm not slamming any group in particular and it's all just my opinion, man.
-nme!
Re:The End of the World As We Know It (Score:3)
Re:The End of the World As We Know It (Score:2)
by Industrial Disease on 10:36 AM December 2nd, 1999 EST (#137)
(User Info)
I know I've read some really nasty post-Rapture fiction that had a tone of "Let's rejoice in the way them sinners are gonna suffer after us Real Christians are called up to Heaven," kind of like some of the more hateful Jack Chick tracts. I've read some excerpts of something recently that gave me the same feeling; if it wasn't Left Behind, I apologize.
'Left Behind' deals with the plight of new converts after the rapture. People who saw the rapture and said, 'Oh shit, the Christians were right!' and converted. It follows the exploits of the AntiChrist as he peacefully conquers the world, then begins to enslave it. It's an interesting read, though I don't recommend reading it as a religious book but as a Sci-Fi book. It does accurately follow the letter of Revelations Prophecy though... More or less. You might like it.
Kintanon
Re:What I don't understand... (Score:2)
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.
Dogma and religion (Score:5)
Other View Askew work. (Score:2)
(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 [newsaskew.com], which mentions that "Clerks: the animated series" will debut on 07Feb2000.
What these movies are about! (Score:3)
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
Dogma comes across like fanfic. (Score:2)
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
Being John Malkovitch (Score:2)
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.
On Dogma (Score:2)
I'm gonna regret this too (Score:2)
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.
---
Re:What I don't understand... (Score:4)
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..
Re:I'm gonna regret this... (Score:2)
Re:What I don't understand... (Score:2)
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
Re:seen two of em. (Score:2)
let's take god, for instance. one moment god is wrathful and proud, the next moment she is benevolent and curious about the world she created; one moment she is bound by rules of human logic, another moment she exercises omnipotence; one moment she is the god of the old testament, the next moment of the new testament, and yet at others a very pantheist omnibeing permeating all of existence. never mind further consistency problems with other members of his pantheon (e.g. loki was a nordic god, not a biblical entity).
i really wish he hadn't done that. ideas like god having to obey human church's laws about atonement of sins are really quite funny, but how can you present a self-consistent version of spirituality based on that? you just can't. not even if you're kevin smith.
*SLAP*
You missed the point. The movie wasn't about doctrine, it was about faith. The fact that he portrayed God in as many different lights as he could goes to further that. A nod to each belief as a kind of 'You could be right' thing. He did it the way he did it because he was advocating that you have faith in SOMETHING, not neccesarily what everyone else believes in, but something.
Kintanon
Re:What I don't understand... (Score:2)
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
Re:I'm gonna regret this too (Score:2)
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.
who are you to dictate how someone should or should not spread their faith? Apparently you have no problem espousing your own religious views in a public forum. Hypocrite.
Kintanon
Re:I'm gonna regret this... (Score:2)
Besides, Christianity is not the only thing that points to funky stuff happening in the future. If you believe it (I guess as much as one would believe Nostradamus), the Pyramids have an elaborate embedded calendar that runs through 2000 that is supposed to predict some stuff.
Re:Historical Fact (Score:2)
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?
Re:I'm gonna regret this... (Score:2)
But you overly touchy religious types, like hyper-feminists, beefed-up steroid pumping jocks, or any other group that takes their ideas too seriously, needs no real provocation to fly off the handle and accuse somebody of stepping on your oversized toes.
I really don't want to sound that mean, but for God's sake
After all
Call me sarcastic but.... (Score:2)
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.
Bypassed on the way to the movies (Score:2)
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).
Re:What I don't understand... (Score:2)
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
Re:What I don't understand... (Score:2)
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.
Re:"This is what God is purported to be" (Score:2)
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
Re:What I don't understand... (Score:2)
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
Re:I'm gonna regret this... (Score:2)
One of my pet theories is that complexity of belief is evidence of its mistakenness. That is that, if once grasped, a belief does not boil down to a few sentences upon which you expostulate for all time, then it is probably false. That's not doctrine though: just an idea.
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*
Re:I'm gonna regret this... (Score:3)
Speaking of that, I'd like to add something to your list, which I'm not sure you'd agree with:
Republicans (and politicians in general) who claim to be christians ARE NOT. Howver this boils down to what you define as a christian, and republicans don't fit the bill in my eyes. They promote a world where the rich get richer, the poor gets poorer, and the health of the earth declines. What happened to being humble and the golden rule?
Even from a religious point of view I don't think Katz' mainstream type-opinions of it are totally unfouned, even if they do lack a firm knowledge of the subject. Religion (here I refer to christians, as in catholics and protestants) has gotten away from the golden rule, loving your neighbor as yourself, etc, and become a very judgemental entity. Particularly its treatment of gays and women. The church still does a lot of good work, but I don't go to church anymore because of reasons like the ones above. I could probably find a church that fits my views if I looked hard enough, however.
As far as y2k, there aren't many religious people who really think y2k is the apocalype (I know some that wouldn't mind, however). My aunt is a pentacostal (the most extreme right wing branch of christianity that I know of) and she doesn't think anything will happen. I've seen left-leaning magazines that state that all christians think y2k is the end, which is totally unfounded. Propeganda comes from everywhere.
Re:There's another side to Pascal's Wager (Score:2)
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
Re:I'm gonna regret this... (Score:2)
You actually KNOW that Henry Ford began mass producing cars on an assembly line in the early 1900s?.... were you there?
You actually KNOW that Japan exists?.... Are you there?
The point of this is that you are relying on what other, fallible human beings tell you, then you are ridiculing others for the same thing.
It is equally as likely as not that the bible is word for word perfectly reproduced except where translation renders that impossible due to missing words.
Kintanon
Toy Story 2 is "original"?? (Score:2)
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
Re:You mistake theory for dogma (Score:2)
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.
Re:The evil grossly outnumbers the good (Score:2)
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.
Re:View Askew references in Dogma (Score:2)
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).
Re:You mistake theory for dogma (Score:2)
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
Re:Science is fallible (Score:2)
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
Ask Slashdot: Spritual leanings of /. community? (Score:3)
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 [whyy.org], Terry Gross interviewed Kevin Smith. (You'll eventually be able to listen to the show in RealAudio format here [whyy.org] in 28.8 [whyy.org] or ISDN [whyy.org] 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.
Re:You mistake theory for dogma (Score:2)
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.
Re:If 10 billion people believe a lie... (Score:2)
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.
Re:What I don't understand... (Score:2)
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
Re:"This is what God is purported to be" (Score:2)
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
Re:You mistake theory for dogma (Score:2)
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
Re:I'm gonna regret this... (Score:2)
down to what you define as a christian, and republicans don't fit the bill in my eyes. They promote a world where the rich get richer, the poor gets poorer, and the health of the earth declines. What happened to being humble and the golden rule?
I love it when people bitch about grouping and stereotyping, and then turn right around and do the exact same thing.
You just lost all credibility with such a stupid statement.
Re:You mistake theory for dogma (Score:2)
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.
Arnold's Career was Faultering Long Before! (Score:2)
o The Last Action Hero
o Jingle All the Way
I rest my case...
Jordan.
Humbled by Amphigory, an apology (Score:2)
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.
Re:I'm gonna regret this... (Score:2)
So: where exactly did I tell you not to think? This is a beautiful example of people reacting not to what I said, but to what they think, through their superior knowledge of my doctrinal positions, I must have meant. Contemplating apparent paradox's can be great fun, and certainly qualifies as "thining about the universe".
BTW, I love you too, but it's just not that way. Have you ever considered counseling? You sound seriously screwed up.
Re:I'm gonna regret this... (Score:2)
Re:I'm gonna regret this... (Score:2)
The problem is that Christian politics perpetually places you in a position that C.S. Lewis aptly termed "Christianity And". In our society, that would be "Christianity and Pro-Life". Or "Christianity and Family Values". Or (I have even heard from leading lights in the Christian Right) "Christianity and Tax Reform".
The problem is that it usually ends up becoming "Pro-Life and Christianity" after a while. And God won't tolerate second place. Does that mean Christians shouldn't vote their conscience? No. But I think that organizations like the Christian Coalition have missed the boat. Remember: Christian domination of government gave us a compeltely corrupted church in the middle ages, and it could happen again.
On the other hand, I wouldn't exactly call the Democrats Christian either. Politics isn't about ethics: It's about power.
Re:I'm gonna regret this... (Score:2)
I read a book on this few years back. I don't completely remember it but I'll give it a shot.
Apparently, they've so far determined the time scale and where we are. ~1.5 inches per year, I think.
A little explanation: The pyramid has a long tunnel that is not what you would expect from most traditional tunnels. It was painstakingly designed as a calendar. The tunnel, amazingly (could be a coincidence), maps out the state of the world over thousands of years. The way it is currently read, it has already predicted all of the major stuff in our past (in a world view).
According to the current understanding of it, we are approaching a spot where the tunnel is a deep pit with one tiny walkway along the side. After that it rises (over thousands of years) to a high, ornate room. That's where it ends.
An interesting read, even by a card-carrying skeptic, like myself.
Millenial hysteria will outlast the millennium (Score:2)
Therefore, we can expect some people to keep readjusting their schedule for the Apocalypse until 2033.
Re:I'm gonna regret this... (Score:2)
The problem is that if society is to survive there has to be some ethical standard in politics or humans aren't going to be around a whole lot longer, given what we can do with our technology. I think ethics is a politically correct word for morals. So whose morals will we use? There isnt anything close to a majority in the world as far as what the moral basis might be. And what makes the majority correct? I know I'm bordering on relativism here, but it seems almost impossible to me that the human race will ever reach some sort of consensus or even "agree to disagree". Because of this I think we've already sealed our fate, although I try to work for something better than this outcome.
Re:The evil grossly outnumbers the good (Score:2)
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.
Re:There's another side to Pascal's Wager (Score:2)
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.
Re:I'm gonna regret this too (Score:3)
I just want you to be comfortable and snuggle together. Here's some nice warm sugar water to sooth your nerves. Would you like some cotton candy with that?
Love,
Patrick
Re:End of the Days of Bad Movies? (Score:2)
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.
Re:I'm gonna regret this... (Score:2)
*boik*
Re:I'm gonna regret this... (Score:2)
The thing is that there is a moral concensus. What differentiates religions from each other is not their moralities for the most part. Thing is that most people have a heck of a time doing what they know is right.
But that's why we Christians sing Amazing Grace.
Re:Humbled by Amphigory, an apology (Score:2)
Re:Into the pit with Dogma (Score:2)
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
Re:"This is what God is purported to be" (Score:2)
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.
The matrix does make you think (Score:2)
"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"
Re:What I don't understand... (Score:2)
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