All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Mods, feel free to move this thread to wherever you feel it's most appropriate. Furthermore, I won't take any offense if you decide to close this thread (for obvious reason).
My question/concern is this, does religion have a place on the boards? I've seen lots of disputes recently over religion (and participated in some). Now my writing and religion often go hand in hand. But should religion play a role when it comes to reviewing a script? Often times I see members posting subjective viewpoints rather than objective ones. And they tend to get a bit preachy from time to time.
Should religion play a role in your review? And if so, to what degree?
And is there a way to direct all religious conversation/debates to a different thread rather than hijacking one focusing on a particular script? People often veer off into debates, and that's fine, but not when it's distracting others from a script. Don't get me wrong, the mods have been GREAT about monitoring this. But is there a way to tell posters to stop debating in one thread and instead debate in another? Maybe people are getting so uptight and vocal about their beliefs because there isn't a thread for them to express their religious viewpoints.
Just a thought. I'm curious what others have to say.
I remember the homosexuality thread - 'not that there's anything wrong with that'
That was a goodie...but it was a thread all on its own not an offshoot discussion from a script. I do believe it was in the General Section. Just saying, we've had these types of discussions before.
Everyone has their POV, but I agree it would get a lil frustrating if they derail a script thread. They normally get nipped in the bud, by Bert usually, from my experience. A bit like saying: 'take this one outside guys'.
I've always seen SS as a place where people are completely honest when giving a review. If your religion shapes who you are and your own personal beliefs on writing, then why shouldn't it be included in reviews?
I, myself am a little confused as to what religion I should follow. It is for this reason that I appreciate these discussions/debates on religion. For me, I'm incredibly interested in seeing what other people think about God and I'm quite happy to read these points of views. My dad was kicked out of a church once simply because he had a different view on what Christianity should be. After that, I was a little more reluctant to follow a religion that saw it as right to banish others from their church. Of course, not all Christians are like that, but that particular experience shaped my more modern belief on the Bible and what it appeared to preach. I regard myself as Christian, but I believe in other issues (which I dare not mention) which Christianity is strongly against.
Religion is something that shapes us. A part of reviewing a script is expressing yourself. If your religion shapes your opinion, why shouldn't we feel comfortable to openly bring the issue up in a review?
Very often conversations that are not related to script threads will get deleted at a later point. It's easier to delete the conversation once people have forgotten about it (otherwise people complain about their posts being deleted and you end up having to delete those posts too). Like the discussion that probably prompted this thread for you will likely be deleted before too long.
Generally we as moderators do ask people to take conversations not about the script to another thread. However, it's not always that easy to tell if the conversation doesn't belong in the thread and it's always not easy to get people to move a conversation to another thread. Sometimes, even when we try not to, we end up getting dragged into the discussion (because we're human). Therefore, we delete it later.
But it's not all on us mods, if you're going to write a script about religion, conspiracies, or politics then you better expect that discussions related to these subjects are going to pop up in your thread. If it's really bugging you and it's your script thread then you can ask us to put a stop to it immediately. Just send a PM.
If it's not a script thread then pretty much any discussion is considered valid as long as you aren't attacking another person on the board or trolling. If the thread goes off on a tangent then that's pretty much the breaks of forum discussions.
I remember the homosexuality thread - 'not that there's anything wrong with that'
I remember that thread too, it was a doozy. I believe we've had religion threads before but I think they got out of hand and ended up getting locked, deleted and people were banned or left the boards. I wouldn't have participated in those discussions because I know better but I remember seeing the thread.
I think religion/lack thereof should totally play a role in your review if you're consciously aware of the fact that it's affecting how you view the script. Religious and spiritual beliefs aren't a less or more valid basis for a response to a script than any other, even at the level of knee-jerk response -- if you're reading a script and then you suddenly think, "Wow, I am totally not on board with this scene because it offends me due to my beliefs, and I think my friends would feel the same way, and I don't think it's supposed to offend"...isn't that something that you, as a writer, would want to be made aware of?
Not that offense is the only response. I know my roommate, for example, can really appreciate Von Trier on a technical level, but can't connect with his stories due to his perception of the totally nihilistic tone of the films. Because he believes in a god with an intent for humans, the nihilism is off-putting, not because he disagrees with it (which of course he does), but because the film is operating on fundamental assumptions that he doesn't share, so he can't ever really feel comfortable during the viewing -- he has to consistently remain aware of what the film assumes that he doesn't, and vice versa.
And I'm sure there are many similar problems. We should all be aware of ideological biases while reviewing, and I think mention them if we're aware that they're the primary cause of a reaction to a script or certain aspect of a script.
--
And I guess I'll say I remember the homosexuality thread, too. Hee hee.
--
And I guess I'll say, regarding the above post, that whatever god there is has only got love for ya, and it might put you in some kinda heaven but it's sure not gonna put you in some kinda hell, cuz it's only got love and that's whatcha do for loved ones, your best. So I hope none of y'all worried about a hell, cuz if there's one thing this world doesn't need it's more fear.
Totally agree, obviously because my thread was hijacked.
Quoted from Will
And is there a way to direct all religious conversation/debates to a different thread rather than hijacking one focusing on a particular script? People often veer off into debates, and that's fine, but not when it's distracting others from a script. Don't get me wrong, the mods have been GREAT about monitoring this.
Disagree with this though, considering 2 mods where actually part of the hijacking and other 3 are well established here on S.S. So as the saying goes.... it's one rule for one
Mark
and yes mods i'm still pissed and I need my coffee
I apologize if you feel I was bashing you. i know what a great job you all do keeping S.S running, but 30 threads back and forth with zero to do with my script was kinda getting out of hand don't you think..and I know at one point you referenced to keep it about my thread. It then continued for 12 more replies and again.. nothing about the script The fact it was 5 well established people on this site and not newbies... they should know better
My reply was based solely on MY SCRIPT and not what you do as a whole.
When I read a script, I try to keep an open mind ...and see if the story works. Even if it's not 'my cup of tea' I don't let it sway my total opinion of the script.
i know what a great job you all do keeping S.S running, but 30 threads back and forth with zero to do with my script was kinda getting out of hand don't you think..and I know at one point you referenced to keep it about my thread. It then continued for 12 more replies and again.. nothing about the script The fact it was 5 well established people on this site and not newbies... they should know better
My reply was based solely on MY SCRIPT and not what you do as a whole.
Mark
Get over it man.
The MOD’S explained in the best way they can that sometimes conversations happen.
It was prompted by your script and when people have an opinion, which is what tends to happen…
A conversation ensues…
But to act like your thread was dragged behind the wood shed and gangbanged by the elders is ridiculous.
Hijacking averted…
And you didn’t even have to pay a ransom…
In short: there is nothing on your thread to show the conversation ever took place…
Great discussion. Seriously, I've read all of your responses and I'm impressed.
Michael (the mod), I think you said it best. And I think your approach to the issue is the most efficient. Let everyone get it out and then delete the entire debate.
And I feel like one's religious beliefs should play a role in his/hers comments. Personally, I love it when people get p issed off about what I write. I love stirring people up. And I think I've made that pretty clear.
Yet at the same time, I not going to bash a pro-Christian script just because it's pro-Christian. I can put most of my beliefs aside and review the script objectively. And the last thing I would do is try and start an argument. And I feel most of you are this way as well. But there a few who insist on "witnessing" (and in their defense, they have to lest they too be cast into the depths of hell). Any maybe there's a place for this on the boards...but in a seperate thread.
It just appears to me that some people have a lot to say about religion. And that's cool. But can they take it elsewhere? According to the mods (and history), that's nearly impossible to do.
Overall, I think the current method works best. Just figured a healthy discussion on the topic couldn't hurt. Could also remind us all how to approach such touchy subjects.
Those who are genuinely curious about this topic are welcome to peruse this thread -- a poll -- where I broached the topic looking to the members for some guidance.
Privately, Don asked me why I was inviting people to hit me over the head with a sack of hammers -- but he also let us go with it for a while.
The thread is now locked -- but the conversations and poll results are sort of interesting -- and I still use those poll results to kind of guide how I handle this issue. (For people who think I just delete stuff and don't give a sh*t).
Sorry bert, had I of known that that thread existed, I probably wouldn't have started this thread. And not to kiss ass, but I do feel lik the mods here do a great job monitoring the convos. I've modded boards before. And let me be first to say, it's f ucking ROUGH. Seriously, tons of grey issues. And you never come out the good guy.
Oh and surprise! I just received a PM from a member of the boards telling me I was full of c rap. This member then proceeded to quote the Bible. I don't want to derail this convo, but seriously? Some of you crack me up haha
Oh and surprise! I just received a PM from a member of the boards telling me I was full of c rap. This member then proceeded to quote the Bible.
Look at you ya little gossipmonger. Quit being a drama queen, Will. Only reason you started this thread in the first place was stir up the hornet's nest. Nice try. Get over yourself.
And now you're resorting to name calling M. That's very un-Christian like haha
Actually I'm not trying to stir up the hornet's nest at all. Instead, I'm trying to have an intellectual conversation about an issue that's been popping up on the boards. I'm not arguing religion. I'm discussing religion's presence on the boards.
And I'm really not gossiping if I don't reveal that person's name. I did it out of respect for you and to save your a ss. But hey, if you want to "out" yourself then be my guest.
Religion on the boards has definitely been discussed before but as this is in the context of script threads and not the boards at large, I'll indulge.
I actually think subjectivity and opposing ideas are good for script threads. They can be interesting and informative and basically liven up the environment, which I think is what good art does. I think this is important to note as it seems a lot of reviewers want to keep their comments as objective as possible and as a writer, I feel like I'm missing out in that sense. I think religious beliefs can fit into this so long as it's relevant (to the script's subject matter, not in general) and that members don't opt to waive civility (this happens a lot).
Some things to keep in mind...
If you write a script with what might be controversial subject matter, you have to consider the kinds of comments that might go with the territory. If you feel strongly about your beliefs, keep in mind the boards, the site at large, and its content weren't tailor-made to suit you. The scripts you read, you read at your own risk and usually (not always but most of the time) the logline will give you some insight into the script's content.
Either way, don't go looking for a fight. If someone insults you, that's a different story.
Also, perhaps most importantly of all, keep in mind the ultimate relevance this site holds in your life. Most, if not all, of these people, you won't ever even meet in person. The boards are meant to be informative, engaging, and fun. This is probably the worst place to get really butthurt about something.
There is no reason to discuss religion on SS, for two reasons:
1. This is a screenwriters' board; 2. It never gets anyway. Has anyone ever converted from one religion to another after a discussion. Does anyone here think that that such a conversion would actually happen?
A couple of years back there was a religious type here (I think his name was Jesusfreak). Most of his posts consisted of "I stopped reading this after page three because a character used the Lord's name in vain and that's a sin." Did his comments change anyone's writing style? Hell no! People still write the way they want to write. Did this guy piss people off with his comments? Hell yes!
I'm sure there are boards out there for those who wish to argue which is the right religion but, since there's no actual proof which the right religion is, the bullshit doesn't end.
The readers/writers' faith will always come up. There are (atleast) three shorts and one feature that rely on religion in their stories. If the only thing you can say about these scripts is that they shouldn't have been written because it's a sin blah blah blah, then you shouldn't comment at all. It won't change things and you'll just end up annoying people.
As much as this online hissy fit is fun to watch, there is a better way for two opposite parties to solve their differences. It's called Dun, Dun, Dun... Screen writer showdown!
One faith-based script vs a religious bashing. Winner gets a free ticket to Nobodygivesashitville to brag about their victory.
My question/concern is this, does religion have a place on the boards? I've seen lots of disputes recently over religion (and participated in some). Now my writing and religion often go hand in hand. But should religion play a role when it comes to reviewing a script? Often times I see members posting subjective viewpoints rather than objective ones. And they tend to get a bit preachy from time to time..
But then on your Bible Bedtime Stories' thread you say this...
If the mods will allow it, I'd love to hear what those two words were. Michael and I had a brief private conversation. Very pleasant and docile over all. But I love what Christians have to say about this (and I'm not being facetious). Because ten years ago, I was in the exact same place Michael was standing. Call it nostalgia if you will.
I read Michael's message with the happiest of grins. It means that I'm on the right track and encourages me to write more. Can't really explain why, but I promise you it's not out of an ill intentions. I think I like giving people a sense of purpose and fulfillment, a chance to stand up for what they believe in.
Seems like a major contradiction goin' on here. I smell B.S.
As much as this online hissy fit is fun to watch, there is a better way for two opposite parties to solve their differences. It's called Dun, Dun, Dun... Screen writer showdown!
One faith-based script vs a religious bashing. Winner gets a free ticket to Nobodygivesashitville to brag about their victory.
As much as this online hissy fit is fun to watch, there is a better way for two opposite parties to solve their differences. It's called Dun, Dun, Dun... Screen writer showdown!
One faith-based script vs a religious bashing. Winner gets a free ticket to Nobodygivesashitville to brag about their victory.
James
Or they can stick to private messaging, where two parties can treat each other as shitty as they want.
I don't think ignoring the issue is a solution. Saying that we shouldn't discuss religion on the boards is like saying we shouldn't discuss music on the boards. Yes, it's a screenwriter's forum and screenwriting should be the primary focus. But religions is going to pop up whether we like it or not.
But I certainly agree with you dogglebe about people arguing and then leaving none the wiser. These religious debates solve nothing.
And M, you're taking my comments out of context. One was said in a thread about my script. I wanted people's religous feedback. Here, I'm asking for everyone's opinions. And given how diversified everyone's viewpoint is, I think the issue as a whole is worth examining.
M, I think James was being sarcastic. You've come at me again and again via PM. And I think it's trite. I think people deserve to know that you're going after people privately instead of on the boards. Because that could scare away other potential members. We should welcome every writer to the boards. It's how a forum grows. And sending PM's to people isn't going to help with that process. Instead it's going to turn people off. It has turned people off. Besides, I never mention your name anyways. But I do want people to know what's going on behind the scenes, yet still technically on SS.
There is no reason to discuss religion on SS, for two reasons:
1. This is a screenwriters' board; 2. It never gets anyway. Has anyone ever converted from one religion to another after a discussion. Does anyone here think that that such a conversion would actually happen?
Religion is a search for truth. Writing is a search for truth. I think one of the big problems with the way some religion is practiced is that rather than being discussed, it's dictated.
The goal of discussing religion shouldn't be to convert someone to your point of view, but to explore together which ideas are worthy and helpful, or seem to represent truth, and which ideas aren't, or don't.
Religion is also one of the largest factors informing individual perspectives in the world, and our scripts and stories are inextricably linked to, and viewed with, those perspectives. So I think it's very closely related to screenwriting.
So I don't agree with either of the above arguments.
Quoted from dogglebe
A couple of years back there was a religious type here (I think his name was Jesusfreak). Most of his posts consisted of "I stopped reading this after page three because a character used the Lord's name in vain and that's a sin." Did his comments change anyone's writing style? Hell no! People still write the way they want to write. Did this guy piss people off with his comments? Hell yes!
Obviously comments like that are totally non-constructive, but I don't see how they're a big deal. The reason they become problems is that people respond. It shouldn't be that hard to ignore pointless comments, especially if it's the same person consistently making them, as Don has thoughtfully provided us with the user block function. And if people want to respond, all power to 'em, but they shouldn't complain when threads then get derailed.
M, I think James was being sarcastic. You've come at me again and again via PM. And I think it's trite. I think people deserve to know that you're going after people privately instead of on the boards. Because that could scare away other potential members. We should welcome every writer to the boards. It's how a forum grows. And sending PM's to people isn't going to help with that process. Instead it's going to turn people off. It has turned people off. Besides, I never mention your name anyways. But I do want people to know what's going on behind the scenes, yet still technically on SS.
I've sent you two PM's. To which you responded, then I responded. Which makes a total of 4 PM's. So please don't even try to come off like you're doing this to protect the boards. Your script BBS blatantly spoofs the Bible then you get your beak bent out of shape when somebody calls you on it (In private, like I tried). Then you start this thread under the guise that you're concerned or about religion on the boards? Ah screw it. Not worth my time. Have a great day.
Obviously comments like that are totally non-constructive, but I don't see how they're a big deal. The reason they become problems is that people respond. It shouldn't be that hard to ignore pointless comments, especially if it's the same person consistently making them, as Don has thoughtfully provided us with the user block function. And if people want to respond, all power to 'em, but they shouldn't complain when threads then get derailed.
Umm M you didn't try to call me out in private. You posted two words then your post was removed by the mods. But bashing people over the head with Bible verses isn't constructive...no matter how you do it. And quoting Bible verses isn't going to help me with my screenplay.
Look, I'm not trying to go back and forth with you specifically. I wanted to have an open conversation. The reason I did it was because I saw another thread get sidetracked with a religious debate yet again. It's happened a few times now and I thought the issue should be addressed. I wanted to know how others approached the issue. Some go in completely objective while others bring their religion into it. I wanted to know people's reasoning behind it...and hopefully solve other threads from getting side tracked.
And it is a shame that people can't discuss religion. This is why I stopped doing so. Because people turn discussions into debates very quickly.
Let's all get a beer in Nobodygivesashitville! I'll buy the first round. You included M.
The goal of discussing religion shouldn't be to convert someone to your point of view, but to explore together which ideas are worthy and helpful, or seem to represent truth, and which ideas aren't, or don't.
But it has to be a consensual discussion among all parties. Thrusting your beliefs on those uninterested only creates friction.
Religion, in its best possible permutation, is a collective search for truth, through the power of myth rather than of empirical observation. Myth and science are both integral parts of our understanding of the world. Religion can be used as an important transmitter of myth, or as a powerful system of control -- the latter is and has been extremely problematic in the world.
Consensual discussion, yes, definitely. There is no content in any religious belief I am aware of which merits being pushed upon those unwilling.
Again, I'm looking at this in the context of script threads and not the boards at large. It's very simple as far as I'm concerned. If the script involves religious themes then a discussion about religion should be fair game. Unlike other threads, script threads are supposed to benefit the writer. Once this ceases to be the case, it's obviously a problem but otherwise... fair game.
General discussions about religious have popped up before without the context of a script to structure it and obviously, they haven't ended (or began) well. But that's another story.
Again, I'm looking at this in the context of script threads and not the boards at large. It's very simple as far as I'm concerned. If the script involves religious themes then a discussion about religion should be fair game. Unlike other threads, script threads are supposed to benefit the writer. Once this ceases to be the case, it's obviously a problem but otherwise... fair game.
Also, in regards to the PM comment, I was being a bit cheeky but not entirely sarcastic. If people want to bitch at each other via PM, be my guest. It has nothing to do with the rest of us. Unfortunately, bitching back and forth via PM is about as effective at resolving conflict as bitching back and forth in real life.
Also, while threads about religion tend to be prefaced by some kind of argument between two (or more) people (which is not lost on me here), I still prefer to respond taking the topic seriously; I've no interest in getting in the middle of two people's back and forth.
I agree, a religious discussion is appropriate for religous scripts. I said the same thing in my other post. But as others have mentioned, these are rarely discussions. Discussions should benefit the writer. But two people going back and forth with each other isn't helpful to the writer. It takes the focus off of the script and onto two people's religous beliefs. And that's the problem that I've been seeing on the boards as of late.
And my apologies James if I drug you into an argument. That was not my intention. Was simply trying to defend myself against false accusations.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The purpose of this thread is to discuss religion's place on the boards. And I'm really enjoying this discussion. Learning lots about the boards and each member individually. I find it quite intriguing.
I completely disagree that a reviewer has a green light to impose their religious beliefs on a script review just because the script contains religious material.
Either a script is well written and engaging or it's not. If personal beliefs related to the subject matter become a factor in whether a script or film is well done, then you may as well open the checklist to guns, ghosts, politics, sexual preference,...
I don't recall any of the legitimate film critics interjecting their personal religious beliefs within their reviews of The Passion of the Christ.
I think there's a fine line between expressing your beliefs in a calm and well-mannered way and becoming the preacher of SS. Yes, I agree with these types of discussion as I am genuinely interested in what other members have to say about religion. However, to sit there and attempt to force your religion down someone's throat is a completely different matter. To me, it seems a little judgemental, which is not a practice I see fit for the boards. We shouldn't judge, whether we're religious or not.
By all means, have your opinion and express it, but when people disagree and tell you they don't appreciate the way you're conducting yourself, then back off. You've said your bit. Why bother to make a fuss?
I came to SS to discuss screenplays. If religion plays a part in a script, then go ahead and discuss it, but to sit there bashing the writer over the head because of your beliefs is taking things a bit too far. That's when you come across as a Preacher. Don't try and convert these threads to a church session.
If the script involves religious themes then a discussion about religion should be fair game.
I'm gonna call BULLSHIT on this!
Discussion the religious elements in the script may be appropriate. Writing, you're going to hell for writing this is completely inappropriate.
At the risk of whoring one of my scripts (you all know how much I hate doing this), CrusaderVoice wrote a great review about The Devil's Jokebook. Despite the fact that the script went against what he was taught, he enjoyed the script. He was able to put his beliefs aside for a piece of fiction.
Unless the writer states that a script is based on a true story, everyone should accept it simply as fiction. The Unlikely scripts were obviously parodies. They're not trying to open up anyone's eyes. If you can't accept a script as a piece of fiction then you should consider Phil 12: 21-12: "Get thy fuck over it!"
I agree with Bogey and Phil that just because religion is dealt with in a script does not justify proselytizing some doctrine in the review. Treat the script on its own terms.
If it's clearly parody, treat it as such. Or don't read it if you can't handle that.
If it's a Christian themed script, don't start preaching Islamic Jihad in the review.
If it's a Muslim script don't preach about Jesus saving.
As far as science vs religion, while I am more of a science guy, it's not so clear that one is focused on truth and the other on superstition. I think various religious approaches do involve a search for truth, though through a different methodology. Yes, there other factors, such as satisfying certain psychological needs, but science is not exempt from that.
The history of science is littered with paradigms that were eventually overturned, but which were once held in very dogmatic way by most scientists.
We have plenty examples of that today, such as global warming. Man made global warming may be quite real, but most scientists remain skeptical about many of its claims. However, among "climate scientists" there is almost universal agreement about these claims.
Someone might argue that the difference is accounted for by the fact that "climate" scientists as specialists are in a better position to know, but it's also very evident that climate scientists brook no dissent among their own. Very much like an order of priests, actually.
I've personally known some climate scientists. In each case they were politically active before entering the field and brought an already established point of view. And that's generally how it works in that field, where "climate" scientists come into it with well established ideas. And those with contrary ideas are not going to get far. So it's less about a search for truth and more about arguing a perspective already held.
No doubt there are many fields in science like this. While I prefer scientific method, no one has a monopoly on truth.
James said a discussion of religion was warranted by religious content in a script. He's not saying that preaching or condemning is acceptable. Discussion is a reasonable and (relatively) calm presentation of ideas. I don't think anyone's saying that people should be encouraged to make pointless, hostile comments.
Quoted from Bogey
If personal beliefs related to the subject matter become a factor in whether a script or film is well done, then you may as well open the checklist to guns, ghosts, politics, sexual preference,...
Well, yes. Not relating to whether or not the script is well done -- these factors have no bearing on that -- but it's absolutely reasonable to mention your perception of these ideas if it strongly informs your reaction to the work.
Look at Kev's review of Safe House, for example -- there was a political perspective in the film that he disagreed with, it affected his enjoyment of the film, he commented on that. Doesn't change whether the film was effectively made, but it changes whether he as a viewer enjoyed it. Pertinent information.
Good call, Chris, but keep in mind the issue was not so much that I disagreed with the politics of the film(though I did) but that I thought the political explanation constructed has been so done to death that it's no longer original. I still love the movie Three Days of the Condor, but that kind of thing was fresh when it was made. At this point that kind of thing is just people parroting the same dogma. Lazy thinking and lazy writing.
Had an amateur submitted the script for Safe House here I would have been much kinder. As writers working together, when I read a script my intention is not to enjoy the story, but to hopefully find a way to help the writer improve the script. It's a huge difference.
I completely disagree that a reviewer has a green light to impose their religious beliefs on a script review just because the script contains religious material.
Quoted from dogglebe
Writing, you're going to hell for writing this is completely inappropriate.
This is so obviously not what I'm talking about. I don't condone or defend but rather condemn both scenarios. I really don't see what in my previous comments would lead anybody to believe I would advocate imposing religious beliefs on others or threats/abuse based on said beliefs. Utterly flabbergasted.
Fortunately, someone was able to clarify so I don't have to (thanks, dude)...
James said a discussion of religion was warranted by religious content in a script. He's not saying that preaching or condemning is acceptable. Discussion is a reasonable and (relatively) calm presentation of ideas. I don't think anyone's saying that people should be encouraged to make pointless, hostile comments.
I saw the word "consensual" used earlier. I suppose I'll amend my previous comments to include consent.
Let me know if you guys need another caveat or a hundred.
This is so obviously not what I'm talking about. I don't condone or defend but rather condemn both scenarios. I really don't see what in my previous comments would lead anybody to believe I would advocate imposing religious beliefs on others or threats/abuse based on said beliefs. Utterly flabbergasted.
I've been told I was going to Hell by a member of this board. Although I don't believe in Hell, I find it insulting. It's kinda like saying, "Your Mom's a whore." Even though you know she's not, it's still an insult.
I don't really get the entire religion thing. I myself was raised in a Catholic family where not exactly everyone went to mass on Sundays, or like, ever.
I don't really believe in anything really. I guess maybe I'm Atheist.
Even though I have these beliefs I can talk openly about, I would never preach them to someone or shove my ideas about religion down someone's throat, and I would expect other members to do the same. Beleive what you want to, but just don't try to pressure it upon some else. I respect everyone whom believes in religion/belongs to a particular religion even if I have different views.
Just my cents. 'Tis all.
-- Curt
"No matter what you do, your job is to tell your story..."
I think it would be cool to have religion/politics discussed in script threads only if it involved everyone analyzing the character's beliefs, actions, consequences, or the plot of the story. If everyone started debating issues amongst themselves -- and totally left the script in the background -- it would be a whole different ball game.
I've been told I was going to Hell by a member of this board. Although I don't believe in Hell, I find it insulting. It's kinda like saying, "Your Mom's a whore." Even though you know she's not, it's still an insult.
Phil
You're preaching to the choir, dude (if you'll pardon the expression); I'm in total agreement with this. Again, I feel like I'm not getting through somehow.
I've been told I was going to Hell by a member of this board. Although I don't believe in Hell, I find it insulting. It's kinda like saying, "Your Mom's a whore." Even though you know she's not, it's still an insult.
Phil
Dear Phil,
You know I had not long ago finished "Devil's Jokebook", and I can understand and sympathize with someone caught up in whatever religosity where-to-hitherto-and-forementioned-or-something-like-that Jesus (in said mentioned script) is called bastard.
You know, and I know, that your intention is not to blaspheme or cause hurt to any religious entity. At least, that's the way I feel it.
I think the problem comes in (as with anything) where people feel like they or their beliefs are threatened. Heck, it might not be something so serious as the G-d topic. It might be how one fashions their homemade Chicken-chow-mein. Some critic winds up at your house and boasts chef credentials and you feel like an insignificant pea.
Yes, and I agree that some people are so damn religious that they're no earthly good. Now...
That's not to say that I don't believe in G-d and many sacred scriptures (including modern fiction). I do, but that's my story and I believe in sharing; not shoving my experience down another individual's throat.
If we didn't have this individuality, what is it that would distinguish us from machines?
What would provide the texture that is life?
Anyways, I know that you don't have bad intentions. Enough said.
I've been told I was going to Hell by a member of this board. Although I don't believe in Hell, I find it insulting. It's kinda like saying, "Your Mom's a whore." Even though you know she's not, it's still an insult. Phil
Just so I've got this straight. It's not okay to insult your mom, but it's perfectly acceptable to insult Jesus, who's very much alive and well. The same Jesus who died a horrible death on a cross, rose again on the third day, and now sits at the right hand of God, and has ALL authority under Heaven and earth.
Definitely not a good idea.. So please, stop trying to shoot the messenger.
Just so I've got this straight. It's not okay to insult your mom, but it's perfectly acceptable to insult Jesus, who's very much alive and well. The same Jesus who died a horrible death on a cross, rose again on the third day, and now sits at the right hand of God, and has ALL authority under Heaven and earth.
Jesus is a public figure and therefore usable as a character in satire or parody. Phil's mother is not.
Just so I've got this straight. It's not okay to insult your mom, but it's perfectly acceptable to insult Jesus, who's very much alive and well. The same Jesus who died a horrible death on a cross, rose again on the third day, and now sits at the right hand of God, and has ALL authority under Heaven and earth.
In some people's mind, Jesus doesn't exist. The issue here is when people try to force their religion on others as opposed to accepting their beliefs in a mature way. You may not realize this, mate, but the one thing that really annoys other members (or anyone for that matter) is having something forced upon you. Some choose to not believe in Jesus and write fiction about it. It's their choice, not yours.
Jesus is a public figure and therefore usable as a character in satire or parody. Phil's mother is not.
I'm trying my hardest to wrap my mind around that one. Still doesn't make sense. Considering Phil's mom is a mere mortal and Jesus is Creator of all things great and small. And I'd have to reference John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (Jesus was the Word - God manifested in the flesh).
So therfore, I have a tendency to find it just as offensive when someone badmouths Jesus, just as somebody would find it offensive if I badmouthed their mom. It's the same thing. And yet people wanna get all up in arms (like albinopenguin did, when I called him on the utter tastlessness of his BBS script. And Irish Eyes, too).
If these guys are gonna go out of their way to take cheap shots at my Lord and Savior, then they should expect guys like me to answer them back. And no disrepect meant to Phil's mom. That was just an example. Anyway, I've already spent too much my time on this subject. The fact that albinopenguin started this thread is ridiculous. Hhe could care less about religious discussions on the board, although he's acting like he started this thread for the greater common good of SS. Yeah right.
I'm trying my hardest to wrap my mind around that one. Still doesn't make sense.
Then you're probably happy I didn't say that Jesus is a character from a public domain novel. He is free to use in any derivative or non-derivative work without concern for copyright or trademark laws.
Whether it's intentional or not, I've definitely seen some very lopsided evaluations of what's OK to discuss with religion. On the one hand, posting pro-religious comments is deemed unnecessary, and yet, calling religion out for being nonsense is accepted because it appears to be the general consensus of the board. That can't be right. The right to expression goes both ways. Let's get this straight: there are people who believe religion should be taken off the playing field and are entirely intolerant of it. To me, that mentality differs not one jot from bigots in any subject or area.
Personally, I'm as offended by people like Dawkins (or his ridiculous band of merry atheist cultists) as I'm by any OTT preacher trying to convert me to disavow my gay friends or to not drink or to give 10% of my earnings to a church. They are one and the same. I'm not personally religious, but do I believe in God? You betcha. The reason I discard religion is simply because of the man made rules designed to control and calm a poulace rather than allow them the rights to self-expression within the confines of the law. But we should respect those who hold religious views because in society their voice is being diminished by the sometimes vicious disdain of those trying to prove the unprovable... there is no God. If your life's work is to achieve that goal, you really will be disappointed. No one can prove anything either way.
And let me put it on record that my respect for 'people of the cloth' is greater than avid atheists like Dawkins whose motives appear largely egotistical under the guise of scientific motivations. Many scientists have faith and to have faith is something to be respected, not mocked.
Regards inputting religion in revews, I think it's best to place it in the category of perspective, as you would if people were inserting gender, race or sexuality perspectives. If it's obviously ridiculous like "you're going to hell", why would you even let that scratch your shoulder? It's silly and very likely designed to wind you up. Ignore it. As David Brent said (the superior British one): "like water off a duck's back".
To me, it appears a self-inflicted wound to strip away the possibilities that injecting religion (or any subject, for that matter) into the mix when writing or evaluating work. We should all be seeking to add depth and texture to our work, and by closing to your mind to any area that may allow you to do that, you're depriving yourself of a chance to be a better writer.
There have been alot of good, reasoned posts on this particular thread. Here, here.
My three cents. I don't have a problem with someone bringing up religion - if the discussion plays directly into the story itself. (The movie Dogma being an obvious example of that.) Or - if there's something that truly offends one's religious sensibilities about a script - mentioning so. In a polite, reasonable way. (IE: saying something along the lines of 'I do object to such-and-so due to my belief X.') I've seen reviewers do that (recently, in fact.) And I very much respect it.
What I DO object to is when a thread is hijacked, or used as a platform for posting one's general religious beliefs. Or a script is slammed SOLELY for religious reasons, without bringing up the merits of the writing or story. Because the purpose of these boards is to foster terrific writing. And that's regardless of it's impact on religious sensibilities.
Just so I've got this straight. It's not okay to insult your mom, but it's perfectly acceptable to insult Jesus, who's very much alive and well. The same Jesus who died a horrible death on a cross, rose again on the third day, and now sits at the right hand of God, and has ALL authority under Heaven and earth.
To most people in the world, Jesus never existed; he's a fictional character. How much respect and belief do you have for Mohammed, Odin and Xenu?
My mother, on the other hand, did exist. I'm proof of that and can provide further proof if needed.
For a dispassionate viewpoint on the subject of offensive parodying of public figures, the best explanation is a US Supreme Court case involving Reverend Jerry Falwell vs. Hustler Magazine.
Hustler parodied an actual Campari Liqueur ad campaign called "My First Time", in which celebrities would reminisce about their first sexual experience. Well, Hustler's parody featured the Reverend Falwell waxing on about his first sexual experience - with his mother in an outhouse.
Falwell sued, he won, and the US Supreme Court overturned it, ruling in favor of Hustler. It's the standard of the right to use parody in literature, no matter how offensive.
Ray Comfort assumes that things can't be created naturally. His argument falls apart because of this. And even if there was a creator, Mike, how do we know it's the God that you worship? Couldn't everything just as easily have been created by Odin or Xenu or Chronus?
BTW, I will slowly be alternating the list of gods. Hopefully, it will make a point.
Point is, guys, there's no good reason to have a religious debate here. It always ends up with bad feelings, a locked thread and a member leaving the boards... like last time. I mean, believe what you want, as there's plenty of choices out there.
In the world, there are over 400 distinct religions (active) without even going into the old school ones that have since been called myths. Take your pick and stand by it. You know, be happy that you'll be in the good graces of whichever god you choose.
Ray Comfort also argues that the banana is proof of "Almighty God" because it, the banana, and the hand are each perfectly shaped for the other, and the banana has a natural non-slip surface and a biodegradable container with perforations.
"How about trying to help a writer avoid the fires of Hell? I'd say that's pretty darned relevant, too."
Actually, it's none of your business. And I don't even really think you care one bit about saving a soul, which you've tended to prove over and over. This is about you, Michael, not about saving anyone. If it were about saving souls you would not get combative and insulting. Let's call a spade a spade. This is about you and your own needs.
But if you want to save souls, fine, just not in script review threads. There are opportunities in other threads for you to get out your message. Would you want someone going into your script threads and preaching atheism or Islam or Scientology, or communism?
The purpose of the review threads is to help the writer, and that should guide your comments.
By the way, whatever happened to the turn the other cheek Jesus? Whatever happened to the Jesus that tried to convert by gently telling parables and hanging out with riff raff and people that lost their way? Simply citing biblical passage numbers as though that constitutes a coherent argument meant to convince...come on man. Do you really think anyone looks those up? If you're going to convert, be persuasive, or at least try. Hammering people with Gospel numbers just proves your real purpose. Think about it.
There's a terrific article written by John Yorke that touches in part on this subject, and encourages the contrarian.
"We don't like Satan in Paradise Lost – we love him. And we love him because he's the perfect gleeful embodiment of evil. Niceness tends to kill characters. Much more interesting are the rough edges, the darkness – and we love these things because, though we may not want to admit it, they touch something deep inside us."
Whether it's intentional or not, I've definitely seen some very lopsided evaluations of what's OK to discuss with religion. On the one hand, posting pro-religious comments is deemed unnecessary, and yet, calling religion out for being nonsense is accepted because it appears to be the general consensus of the board. That can't be right. The right to expression goes both ways. Let's get this straight: there are people who believe religion should be taken off the playing field and are entirely intolerant of it. To me, that mentality differs not one jot from bigots in any subject or area.
Personally, I'm as offended by people like Dawkins (or his ridiculous band of merry atheist cultists) as I'm by any OTT preacher trying to convert me to disavow my gay friends or to not drink or to give 10% of my earnings to a church. They are one and the same. I'm not personally religious, but do I believe in God? You betcha. The reason I discard religion is simply because of the man made rules designed to control and calm a poulace rather than allow them the rights to self-expression within the confines of the law. But we should respect those who hold religious views because in society their voice is being diminished by the sometimes vicious disdain of those trying to prove the unprovable... there is no God. If your life's work is to achieve that goal, you really will be disappointed. No one can prove anything either way.
And let me put it on record that my respect for 'people of the cloth' is greater than avid atheists like Dawkins whose motives appear largely egotistical under the guise of scientific motivations. Many scientists have faith and to have faith is something to be respected, not mocked.
Regards inputting religion in revews, I think it's best to place it in the category of perspective, as you would if people were inserting gender, race or sexuality perspectives. If it's obviously ridiculous like "you're going to hell", why would you even let that scratch your shoulder? It's silly and very likely designed to wind you up. Ignore it. As David Brent said (the superior British one): "like water off a duck's back".
To me, it appears a self-inflicted wound to strip away the possibilities that injecting religion (or any subject, for that matter) into the mix when writing or evaluating work. We should all be seeking to add depth and texture to our work, and by closing to your mind to any area that may allow you to do that, you're depriving yourself of a chance to be a better writer.
"How about trying to help a writer avoid the fires of Hell? I'd say that's pretty darned relevant, too."
Actually, it's none of your business. And I don't even really think you care one bit about saving a soul, which you've tended to prove over and over. This is about you, Michael, not about saving anyone. If it were about saving souls you would not get combative and insulting. Let's call a spade a spade. This is about you and your own needs.
But if you want to save souls, fine, just not in script review threads. There are opportunities in other threads for you to get out your message. Would you want someone going into your script threads and preaching atheism or Islam or Scientology, or communism?
The purpose of the review threads is to help the writer, and that should guide your comments.
By the way, whatever happened to the turn the other cheek Jesus? Whatever happened to the Jesus that tried to convert by gently telling parables and hanging out with riff raff and people that lost their way? Simply citing biblical passage numbers as though that constitutes a coherent argument meant to convince...come on man. Do you really think anyone looks those up? If you're going to convert, be persuasive, or at least try. Hammering people with Gospel numbers just proves your real purpose. Think about it.
Dude, you're so off track. On all points. Nice try, though.
First, let me say, the REAL problem I have with this thread is that it happens to be going on now. I have a plenty to say on this and to the related thread somewhere else that was deleted but it's been a very busy week (and I got caught up in Florida Gulf Coast dismantling Georgetown last night). When I've glanced through, I've thought of what I could lend but figured I do so at the next available moment and by then a few dozen posts go by.
I guess it's too much to ask for everyone here to check with my schedule first?
Even now I'm dripping wet and fighting nausea from a workout that was six months overdue.
Anyway, I studied comparative mythology at a secular liberal arts college (I was a double-major…should have minored in Business but thought that was boring…and, the 9-1 female to male ratio among English majors at the school didn’t exactly discourage me). I had to defend my faith in Christianity against professors and fellow students that believed everything was the same. It wasn’t enough for me to say that you just had to have faith. I had to attend class armed with facts and logic to have my point make any sense.
(For those that use the “you just have to have faith”…nothing wrong with that. In fact, you’re all better than me on that end. I had to have and needed something more).
Jesus existed. There were literally thousands of eyewitnesses to his ministry, miracles, execution and appearances in his resurrected body. The sources for those accounts are NOT just in the Bible. There are many references regarding him in non-Biblical sources and historical records of the day (and none of those carry a religious agenda), the most prominent being the Jewish historian Josephus. The early church came under attack on all fronts. It would have NEVER survived if it was based on fictional character. You can no more deny Jesus existed than you can Hammurabi.
I work at a faith-based college. You can’t swing a dead cat over here without hitting at least six professors that have written papers, books and / or could lecture for hours on the historical Jesus. Many have been involved with archeological digs in Israel and the Middle East verifying Biblical accounts and they work alongside science professors involved in their own pursuit of discovery and the have yet to discern anything that contradicts what the Bible has to say. (I, on the other hand, spend the institution’s money on football and basketball games…thankfully none of them resent me for that and they’re all cool to talk to.)
There’s a lot I could have chimed in on but didn’t have the chance. I may PM some of you on some things that I read about 497 posts ago. If I rehashed it here, I’d take the thread backwards…which in some ways would be annoyingly awesome! But I haven't been on the board long enough to establish myself and being that much of a pest.
I’ll try and post again after I’ve showered, chugged down a Power-ade and gotten an update on a certain Bracket playing out today.
The early church came under attack on all fronts. It would have NEVER survived if it was based on fictional character. You can no more deny Jesus existed than you can Hammurabi.
This is actually a piss-poor argument.
While stories of Jesus survived, so did stories regarding the Greek gods, Norse gods, Roman gods, Aztec, Islam, etc.. And they've all come under attack by someone... a lot of them by the Christians.
...I've definitely seen some very lopsided evaluations of what's OK to discuss with religion. On the one hand, posting pro-religious comments is deemed unnecessary, and yet, calling religion out for being nonsense is accepted because it appears to be the general consensus of the board.
I readily acknowledge the truth to this -- and from a moderator perspective -- this is one of the key issues that makes this topic difficult.
But there is also the double-standard that goes unrecognized by the other side of the aisle.
When Faith-based scripts are posted -- you have to look, but they're around -- the non-believers NEVER jump on there and start trouble -- bashing the author and stirring up debate -- "utter garbage" or "What a horrible person you must be!"
But post a satire of faith, and here come the rightous -- boldly proclaiming that it is their God-given right to spring into action -- as if an all-powerful deity was somehow in need of their defense.
This is the other double-standard I struggle with.
Unless it's billed a "true story", it's just not in fair territory to judge a script based on personal religious beliefs that conflict with the fictitious material.
The reviews of Abe Lincoln Vampire Hunter were poor because the film was arguably poor, not because there was any debate over whether Lincoln actually hunted vampires.
When Faith-based scripts are posted -- you have to look, but they're around -- the non-believers NEVER jump on there and start trouble -- bashing the author and stirring up debate -- "utter garbage" or "What a horrible person you must be!"
Bert that was one incident. And I'm referring to the "utter garbage" post. And nobody ever told anybody 'they're a horrible person". You threw that in as an exageration, IMO.
You're taking one recent isolated incident and making a mountain out of a molehill
Now if you're gonna drudge up crap from two years ago, then that's a whole different story, but personally I think I've done very well on biting my tongue as of late. Anyhow, I know these discussions give you a headache so I'll try to let sleeping dogs lie. Have a great day.
Whether it's intentional or not, I've definitely seen some very lopsided evaluations of what's OK to discuss with religion. On the one hand, posting pro-religious comments is deemed unnecessary, and yet, calling religion out for being nonsense is accepted because it appears to be the general consensus of the board. .
I may not have worded that correctly. I meant Christianity as a movement would not survived if based on a figment of imagination.
If the stories you referenced had not survived I would have been stuck reading a lot more James Joyce in college (that might have driven me to switching to a Business minor...the 9-1 female-to-male student ratio wasn't working for me anyway despite the odds).
Christians have had a problem over the years of feeling threatened too often. I've never understood the insecurities if one is grounded and has a grasp on what they believe.
I remember hearing a comedian, years ago, who discussed Heaven and Hell. He said (paraphrasing) that the evil people who gambled and drank and had sex all the time went to Hell. In Hell, they drank and gambled and had sex all the time. All the good people who prayed all the time went to Heaven... where there was harp music.
He added that, since man was made in God's image and we had a sense of humor, then God must have a sense of humor.
The Jews expected their messiah to be a kick a$$ kind of guy who would lead armies against Rome.
The image we have of Jesus is nothing like that. Though the image is not consistent from gospel to gospel. The Jesus of John is more loving, the Jesus of Luke is more angry and bad ass. Maybe that's Michael's Jesus.
But overall, the message of Jesus that emerges is a more spiritual one. Mohammed led armies, Jesus would never have. The 'love thy neighbor' philosophy seems to be the strongest and most consistent message to emerge, and is probably closest to historical reality.
In any case, a more human and humble Jesus would be able to laugh at himself. In the end, those that can do that bring more peace to the world. Which I thought was the goal.
...and Christianity as the bully wasn't the result of anything Biblical. Twisted the Word, maybe...I've never said The Church's history was perfect. There's a long, sad, violent history. Several modern televanganlists haven't helped the image either.
It's easy to look at all that and discount the religion. Those actions aren't what Christianity is all about.
And there really is non-Biblical and non-Christian sources about Jesus performing miracles, his execution and speaking to hundreds of people following his death. Josephus, the Roman historian Tacitus...and others.
The Jews expected their messiah to be a kick a$$ kind of guy who would lead armies against Rome.
The image we have of Jesus is nothing like that. Though the image is not consistent from gospel to gospel. The Jesus of John is more loving, the Jesus of Luke is more angry and bad ass. Maybe that's Michael's Jesus.
But overall, the message of Jesus that emerges is a more spiritual one. Mohammed led armies, Jesus would never have. The 'love thy neighbor' philosophy seems to be the strongest and most consistent message to emerge, and is probably closest to historical reality.
In any case, a more human and humble Jesus would be able to laugh at himself. In the end, those that can do that bring more peace to the world. Which I thought was the goal.
Sure, Kevin, Jesus is all about love but he's also come with a sword.
Furthermore if I see a blind man walking toward a cliff and all I say is "Jesus loves you have a great day", but I don't 'try" to warn him of his impending doom, then that's not love. Of course that blind man also has a God-given right to refuse the help.
. And there really is non-Biblical and non-Christian sources about Jesus performing miracles, his execution and speaking to hundreds of people following his death. Josephus, the Roman historian Tacitus...and others.
Those "accounts" were written at least 100 years after the events based on oral tradition stories. Using the same logic we can say that something like Beowulf is true. There is no way to verify what actually happened based on what Tacitus wrote - in a court of law it would be considered hearsay and not admissible as evidence.
That's all I have to say on the issue - I trust you have all learnt from my wisdom.
Strange, I thought we normally discussed scripts on this site, oh and why Jeff's in a bad mood etc etc
Ok, ok, ok....one last word...
Respect
It's all we ask. You don't need to agree, or understand, or believe, but also you don't need to offend. Likewise respect doesn't need to preach - that applies to either side- or try and convert. Besides, it never works.
I don't intend to return to this thread.
Sleep well folks.
Ps Will - nice idea, sorry it hasn't worked out. Not your fault.
The Elevator Most Belonging To Alice - Semi Final Bluecat, Runner Up Nashville Inner Journey - Page Awards Finalist - Bluecat semi final Grieving Spell - winner - London Film Awards. Third - Honolulu Ultimate Weapon - Fresh Voices - second place IMDb link... http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7062725/?ref_=tt_ov_wr
"For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law"
I want no part of that Jesus. You want to look me up, I guess I'll be where it's pretty hot.
The bible has many inconsistencies, as most people know. The gospels were written long after Jesus, long after the disciples, and the texts were written with their own purposes in mind.
Jesus with a sword? I prefer the one that works at the video store on the Family Guy. I'm not really into Jihad. If that puts me in brimstone, so be it.
And if Jesus came down with a sword to kick some a$$...how'd that work out for him? I prefer the loving Jesus. You can keep the Ghenghis Jesus and smite the world all you want.
"For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law"
I want no part of that Jesus. You want to look me up, I guess I'll be where it's pretty hot.
The bible has many inconsistencies, as most people know. The gospels were written long after Jesus, long after the disciples, and the texts were written with their own purposes in mind.
Jesus with a sword? I prefer the one that works at the video store on the Family Guy. I'm not really into Jihad. If that puts me in brimstone, so be it.
And if Jesus came down with a sword to kick some a$$...how'd that work out for him? I prefer the loving Jesus. You can keep the Ghenghis Jesus and smite the world all you want.
I don't think posting scripture does anything but prove (yet again) that you are very devout. Sorry, but what does that contribute to discussion? If I posted a link to some atheistic organization's website, would anyone care, or think that it somehow plays a role in this conversation?
I'm posting LINKS, not scripture. Big difference, Bert. And they are very pertinient for answering questions and rebuking lies. When Jesus was tempted by the Satan in the wildreness he quoted scripture and nothing but scripture. The Devil left.
The word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword. And a whole lot better than opinions. Grass withers and the flowers fade, but the Word of the Lord stands forever.
Tacitus' Annals of Rome was around 116. Josephus was more like 70 AD...which is practically a news flash when it comes to ancient historical writings. Again, those two guys are talking NOT about Jesus as divine...just the ruckus that was created because of his life and followers. Josephus was Jewish and there's no evidence he had any interest in helping or aiding Christians. He mainly just wanted Romans dead.
Those are historical accounts of the time and examples of how, if you don't want to believe the Bible, there are other places that say Jesus existed, did stuff, appeared after his death and had a following that added to an already tumultous time.
It's apocrypha that was written hundreds of years later, is less credible, clearly didn't align with Biblical teachings and didn't make the canon. There's some stuff in there that's way weirder that anyone TRYING to make fun of the life of Jesus could come up with.
Josephus was born Joseph ben Mattathias in 37 C.E. in Jerusalem of a priestly and royal family. He excelled in his studies of Jewish law and studied with the Sadducees, Pharisees, and the Essenes, eventually aligning himself with the Pharisees. In 62 C.E. he went to Rome to free some imprisoned priests. After accomplishing this mission through the intercession of Nero's wife, Poppaea, he returned to Jerusalem in 65 C.E. to find the country in revolt against Rome.
Although Josephus had deep misgivings about the revolt, it became inevitable, due to reasons he discusses in his history, primarily the abuses of the Romans; this spurred the growth of fanatical Messianic Jewish movements which believed that the world was coming to an end shortly. In 66 C.E. the Masada was seized by the Zealots and the Romans were on the march; Josephus was appointed the commander of Galilee.
Josephus had to fight a defensive war against overwhelming force while refereeing internecine squabbles in the Jewish ranks. In 67 C.E. Josephus and other rebels were cornered in a cave during the siege of Jotapata and took a suicide pact. However, Josephus survived, and was taken hostage by the Romans, led by Vespasian.
Josephus shrewdly reinterpreted the Messianic prophecies. He predicted that Vespasian would become the ruler of the 'entire world'. Josephus joined the Romans, for which he was branded a traitor. He acted as consultant to the Romans and a go-between with the revolutionaries. Unable to convince the rebels to surrender, Josephus ended up watching the second destruction of the Temple and the defeat of the Jewish nation.
His prophecy became true in 68 C.E. when Nero committed suicide and Vespasian became Ceasar. As a result, Josephus was freed; he moved to Roman and became a Roman citizen, taking the Vespasian family name Flavius. Vespasian commissioned Josephus to write a history of the war, which he finished in 78 C.E., the Jewish War. His second major work, the Antiquities of the Jews, was completed in 93 C.E. He wrote Against Apion in about 96-100 C.E. and The Life of Josephus, his autobiography, about 100. He died shortly after.
Despite his ambivalent role, Josephus was an eyewitness to history, and his writings are considered authoritative. These texts are key to understanding a pivotal point in world history, which has tragic repercussions even to this day.
Hey mate, not arguing that Josephus existed. Just that his original documents don't exist -- and you know who copied these documents and handed them down over the centuries.., Monks... They certainly had a reason to be biased.
Furthermore, the research I did seems to suggest that if it wasn't added later then general agreement was that Josephus copied what he wrote from a Christian explanatory document that no longer exists and therefore can't be verified.
If we were to verify all ancient writings by the same standard, Cornetto, then no written history of the ancient world is reliable. The references provided hold up much more than written accounts of Alexander the Great, which was written more than 400 years after his death. And that's just one example. Most ancient writings, which no one wants to dispute, are written down hundreds of years later.
In regards to the references of Jesus being added later, of course it is possible. If they were, let me just say I'm really disappointed that those monks didn't add more interesting material. It's one thing to say Jesus was there, but another to provide a much more vivid account which could have gone farther in verifying specific events of Jesus' life of the gospels. Either the monks didn't add the reference or did so but were too lazy to anything interesting.
If we were to verify all ancient writings by the same standard, Cornetto, then no written history of the ancient world is reliable. The references provided hold up much more than written accounts of Alexander the Great, which was written more than 400 years after his death. And that's just one example. Most ancient writings, which no one wants to dispute, are written down hundreds of years later.
What makes you think I don't hold up the same filter for all ancient history? Because I do - it's notoriously unreliable and any historian will tell you that.
From my point of view, it seems to me that you are the one holding up different standards when it comes to something you believe to be true. And that's fine, have faith, but don't try to pass it off as fact when it isn't.
Hey mate, not arguing that Josephus existed. Just that his original documents don't exist -- and you know who copied these documents and handed them down over the centuries.., Monks... They certainly had a reason to be biased.
Can anyone argue what David Cross has to say about the Bible?
What makes you think I don't hold up the same filter for all ancient history? Because I do
Because you don't Michael
And because you can’t
No one with a religious predisposition can hold the same caliber of none biasness as one would when dealing with, say politics or world views.
You simply cannot say you have mastered the feat of being the only human being on earth that can put religion in the same categories and be, as you put it...unbiased...
WTF are you talking about Shawn? Being neither an atheist nor a partisan of any religious faith, I don't have a religious predisposition so I don't understand how you can say that I'm biased about it. The fact that I don't believe in Christianity is no different than the fact that I don't believe in Hinduism or Judiasm. There's no bias there.
There's not two standards at work here. Something written within the lifetime of the eyewittnesses to the event seem to be more reliable that something written 400 years after the fact.
It sounds like you don't want to believe anything wasn't written as it happened. Unfortunately, CNN didn't exist then. Few originals of ancient writing survived.
I'm keeping this about facts and not faith. There's a wealth of sources and I just refereced two of them. I'm not making some attempt to pass something off as fact that isn't. If you want, I can provide source material, experts in that particular field and other reference.
There's not two standards at work here. Something written within the lifetime of the eyewittnesses to the event seem to be more reliable that something written 400 years after the fact.
It sounds like you don't want to believe anything wasn't written as it happened. Unfortunately, CNN didn't exist then. Few originals of ancient writing survived.
I'm keeping this about facts and not faith. There's a wealth of sources and I just refereced two of them. I'm not making some attempt to pass something off as fact that isn't. If you want, I can provide source material, experts in that particular field and other reference.
I'm completely done discussing this. What you are doing is spreading viral information. Just because 20 people post the same thing, doesn't make it true.
Even CNN has posted viral material as truth when it wasn't.
Show me the original historical material and then I'll accept it as fact (especially if you can verify that material with another independent source) until then you are barking up the wrong tree if you think you are going to convince me otherwise.
Yeah, that's actually pretty easy to argue against. The Bible was written in several languages and people can still study it in it's original languages.
However, he never made a specific reference to what was added, deleted or who specifically picked it apart.
It's easier to just say "the book's really old...the stories were oral tradition for awhile so there's no way they kept the stories straight...so don't believe any of it" than actually study how it came to be.
You're posting links to scripture. For you to say there's a big difference give us less reason to respect you and what you say. But in regards to your LINK, let's just say that we won't give in to terrorist threats.
Show me the original historical material and then I'll accept it as fact (especially if you can verify that material with another independent source) .
It's called THE HOLY BIBLE
And a billion people will attest to its authenticity...
You and your bible quotes are saying that if I don't follow your beliefs, I'll be punished.
From dictionary.com:
Quoted Text
terrorism [ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
And a billion people will attest to its authenticity...
Shawn.....><
And which version of the Bible would you be talking about: Catholic, one of numerous Protestant ones, Orthodox or Mormon? They are all different.
A billion Indians believe Hindu Scriptures are authentic too. What do you think?
A thousand and some years ago most of the population believed the world was flat and that the sun and planets circled around the earth, it was accepted as fact, but it isn't. People draw erroneous conclusions all the time based on what they believe.
There's plenty there, Cornetto. I'm not really convinced you are open to studying the material, but if given a few days, I can compile some stuff. I know where to go and who to ask for such things.
However, there's a contrarian view on everything. I even remember seeing an interview 15 years ago with a scientist that insisted saying the world was flat and not round. The bottom line is, it won't matter what I send you, will it?
It's funny 'cuz it's true. You and your bible quotes are saying that if I don't follow your beliefs, I'll be punished.
Phil
I'd be worried too, if I were you, Phil.
Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 3:18
It's a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
But if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall ber saved. Romans 10:9
Btw, this is not terrorism, Phil. It's just the truth. I'm sorry if it intimidates you. I understand your position.
Seriously, can we let this go? It's been going on for two fucking days. Neither side is going to change their minds because the other side says to. I mean, take your beliefs and be happy with them somewhere off of this thread (which was a huge mistake to make in the first place).
There's plenty there, Cornetto. I'm not really convinced you are open to studying the material, but if given a few days, I can compile some stuff. I know where to go and who to ask for such things.
However, there's a contrarian view on everything. I even remember seeing an interview 15 years ago with a scientist that insisted saying the world was flat and not round. The bottom line is, it won't matter what I send you, will it?
If you could prove to me that the material was from an unbiased source i.e. not Christian then I would be more than happy to take a look at it. However, from my limited research into this matter I would say that task is going to be rather difficult to achieve.
When was this discussion ever about the authenticity of Christianity, or any religion for that matter? Do I have to remind you guys of what the original posting was all about? The question was "Does religion have a place on the boards?". It had nothing to do with how accurate religion may be. I get the feeling that you guys are straying a little off-course with this one, which we all kinda expected anyway.
Sometimes, I wish people could be civil when it comes to religious debate. This thread was interesting and had it's merits until people corrupted it with their lack of perceptive understanding and empathy. Why can't we just accept the opinions of others and leave it at that?
SR, the only reason why you're quoting the Bible is because the guy that 'helped' you in rehab was Christian. If he was Muslim, you'd be quoting the Quran.
And your constant Bible thumping is probably doing more harm than good around here. You're not saving anyone but you're sure as shit annoying some.
SR, the only reason why you're quoting the Bible is because the guy that 'helped' you in rehab was Christian. If he was Muslim, you'd be quoting the Quran.
And your constant Bible thumping is probably doing more harm than good around here. You're not saving anyone but you're sure as shit annoying some.
Phil
You've got a good memory Phil. But it goes way deeper than that. And the only reason I'm Bible-thumping is because albinopenguin started this thread and the mods have been gracious enough to allow this discussion to go on this far. This thread is the perfect opportunity to spread the Word. Check out the Easter Experience. It's two thumbs up.
Second this. This is just going to get uglier and uglier.
This is tame. You should have been here a couple of years ago when things really got ugly.
It's healthy for board members to get these arguments out of their system. Then we don't see these discussions pop up in script threads as much.
With the exception of possibly two members, I don't see anyone as hating on anyone else. I'm certainly not hating the people I was arguing with. I actually think it's ok for people to have beliefs even though I might argue for a more scientific approach to data.
And, so far, it hasn't gotten to name-calling but if it does we'll put a stop to it, ok?
Since when did the thread become a place for a person to post videos about their religion? That is not what this thread was intended for at all. -- Curt
Because that video explains my stance alot better than I can. It's pertinent to the subject that's being discussed.
When it was mentioned that Jesus never existed, I attempted to show that you could take a secular approach with non-Biblical accounts and come to a different conclusoin even if you are not a Christian or are not interested in being one. Sticking with "you should just believe the Bible" seemed a cop-out route. I forgot that sometimes it doesn't matter what the approach is.
Sorry if I derailed The Board or contributed to the corruption of the thread.
I wonder- would I get banned for writing as a joke- "I really find it hard to believe that a Christian would resort to name-calling"? I would post that, laugh, then wait about two months before returning to the board. That would be this thread's equal to farting in a crowded elevator just as you exited on the second floor while it still has to make 28 more stops.
So you admit that you are now just subverting this conversation to be a Jesus troll. Nice.
And before you get mad with me, note that I deleted none of your posts. So give me credit for that.
Thanks, bert. My hat's off to you.
But, no, I'm not being a Jesus troll. Just trying my best to provide what I consider to be "supporting evidence:" that Jesus and the Bible are in fact, true.
Of course it's difficult to prove when "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". Hebrews 11:1.
Anyway, I've got a script to write so I'll try my best not to fan the flame any more. Unless I'm egged on.
Christianity: 2.1 billion Islam: 1.5 billion Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion Hinduism: 900 million Chinese traditional religion: 394 million Buddhism: 376 million primal-indigenous: 300 million African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million Sikhism: 23 million Juche: 19 million Spiritism: 15 million Judaism: 14 million Baha'i: 7 million Jainism: 4.2 million Shinto: 4 million Cao Dai: 4 million Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million Tenrikyo: 2 million Neo-Paganism: 1 million Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand Rastafarianism: 600 thousand Scientology: 500 thousand
In Bull Durham, Annie Savoy believed in the Church of Baseball. That's not on your list. I also saw a news story about a growing number of people that believe in The Force. That also didn't make your cut. I only saw the first Matrix movie but the religious symbolism was sort more than obvious - did those characters have their own belief system?
Unfortunately, I know some people that would take issue with your Christians total because they don't believe all of them are REAL Christians. And that's a discussion that we should probably avoid here...
There is a part of me that is conflicted on this issue. Right now there's a bit of a backdoor open for such discussion (the Bible miniseries on History Channel) and upcoming films, such as the Moses project which once was circled by Steven Spielberg, now being considered by Ang Lee. Back in 2004, there was Mel Gibson's film Passion Of The Christ. In the late 90s, there were three Jesus TV movies plus an animated Christmas thing. There is also 'faith based' movies in general, or even major H'wood projects such as Soul Surfer from a few years ago.
So when it comes to issues like that, I think there's a time and place for it, in regards to film and writing discussion.
There may be movies and/or scripts that have characters that may have a religious background that has influence on said characters from time to time. There may even be cliches in movies, shows and scripts that would also apply to such discussions.
In general, I am not offended by anyone's faith or lack thereof when it comes to scripts. We even write stories and/or characters which have beliefs other than our own. I'm also sure there may be one story or character who just might, and nothing wrong with that either. In fact, most great dramatic scenes come from that alone - a character's morality/beliefs and that set of values/principles being tested.
But that said ---
If I sign on to a peer site that asks to abide by house rules and refrain as much as possible from the discussions, in my mind, I agreed to that contract. I respect house rules. Not much use or time for flame wars anyway. As it is, I have to also remind myself that there's two types of "Christians": out there. There's Christians and then there's the Woodboro types. I love God, God The Son and God The Spirit. (yeah, yeah, some things I write, I know...) but in recent years I have had my F-I-L-L of the Conspiracy-Pharassee- Woodboro types, especially when it hit me personally. (I actually used some of that and metaphored it into a script) and I forgive them, but they keep on with the conspiracies as far as I know. I'm sick of it. I really am. I just have to remind myself that there's God and then there's man.
Actually, I hope the thread isn't zapped, because I think there is a place in scripts. But as far as boards go, when it goes to flame...?
Unfortunately, I know some people that would take issue with your Christians total because they don't believe all of them are REAL Christians. And that's a discussion that we should probably avoid here...
Yep.. That parable of the Wheat and Tares is definitely an interesting subject. Hard to tell who's who these days. Not to mention the Descendants of the Giants and whatnot. Those darned critters.
Pages: 
Author
Religion and the Boards
Logged
Get over yourself.
