Christian review of FOTR
Luke Hooft
If you're not familiar with the above website check out some of the other
reviews they have. Whether or not you are a Christian you will find them
very interesting, but for different reasons. And I'm sure there are many
sensible Christians who are as annoyed by these folks as secular folks like
me are. But to be fair, the main point of these reviews are to describe the
content of a movie (without ANY consideration of context and intent) to help
Christian parents decide whether or not movies are suitable for their
children, using objective(?) mathematical formulas and techniques.
Interestingly, in the sex/homosexuality category they say "none noted",
meaning they understand the true nature of Sam and Frodo's love, which is
totally platonic. Although perhaps their supposed "homosexuality" will be
something to complain about in the next two movies and not really apparent
in the first.
But the "wanton violence/crime" categories and "offence to God" get scores
of zero. As usual, they make no distinction between the magic/sorcery of the
real world (wiccan religion, satanism etcetera) which they regard to be
undeniably real and invariably evil, and the magic of myth and fairy tale,
which is very different. For example, Gandalf is an angelic being whose
powers come from God, and as such he is not a sorcerer or wizard in the
normal sense. The reviewer makes no acknowlegement of this, regarding it
simply as an example of the use of evil to fight evil, which is a form of
insidious attack on Chrisitanity by secularists who are unknowingly
influenced by "the adversary".
LH
P.S. In the above paragraph I am by no means grouping Wiccans with
Satanists, I'm just saying that a lot of Christians usually do.
damnfine
> Capalert are kooks, nothing more, nothing less.
>
> Their reviews are good for nothing but laughing at.
Reading film reviews on Christian websites is one of my favorite internet
passtimes. I especially recommend family.org and christiananswers.com
Consistently hilarious.
--
/^\damnfine/^\
"It's hard to tell girls what to do. It's like they have minds of their own."
Luke Hooft
news:4TYU7.97694$li3.1...@ozemail.com.au...
No matter how angry/frustrated these reviews make me, I just can't help
myself from reading them.
LH
Liam Devlin
>
> Chad Millar wrote:
> > Capalert are kooks, nothing more, nothing less.
> >
> > Their reviews are good for nothing but laughing at.
>
> Reading film reviews on Christian websites is one of my favorite internet
> passtimes. I especially recommend family.org and christiananswers.com
>
> Consistently hilarious.
My personal favorite was the ad for biblical management consulting.
Never seen that one before.
J D Leister
< snip >
> My personal favorite was the ad for biblical management consulting.
> Never seen that one before.
Those websites are indeed funny.
It must be incredibly hard for these people
to live in the real world with their one set
closed mind view of the universe.
And as for the ad you mentioned above here are some of the
things that used to be advertised at a Pentecostal church
I used to attend.
I have since renounced them.
"Biblical funds management services."
Christian based economic management seminar. They charged
everyone $20.00 to attend this weekend seminar. You can
guess they managed their funds well.
"Biblical sex consultant." Note they won't say counselor
in the ad but they called the person a consultant.
"Biblical based Mortgage broking services"
But never mind their ads because some of the rules
for conduct were even more bizarre.
Their youth leaders would ask that if any couples
are going out as in "an item" they have to bring
this to the attention of the leaders so they can
go for counseling.
At camps and functions there were to be no public
displays of affection. The list goes on but you
get the picture.
John
Untogether
> Those websites are indeed funny.
The last line from the aforementioned review:
'There is no such thing as a "good" witch. Not even Wendy.'
Yeah. That bitch.
Toodleoo...
Spamwise Gamwich
<untog...@btinternet.com> wrote:
I guess that Mary Poppins really IS Satan's spawn. And let's not forget
that evil mouse in Fantasia.
EVILFACE
EVILFACE
"If you're on my path...you better look dead"
Check out all of Evilface's, Zarana-X's, Livevil's and Humvee's customs at:
http://www.evilface.com
Ruben
These Christians are really hypocrites because everything they say what
happened below:
Wanton Violence/Crime (W):
graphic injuries, including amputation and a beheading
explosive startle
monstrous "walking dead" being threats and attacks
graphic torture by demons
theft
attempted sword murders
sword threats
attempts to murder by sorcery
animal attacks
many dead and decaying bodies, repeatedly
multiple exceptionally graphic attacks by unholy beings, including by
thousands of creeping beings with much impalement
graphic imagery of implement
crumbling cavern perils
falling death
fire demon attacks
arrow threats
orders to kill
long sequence of dire urgency with explosive sound
many graphic seething battle sequences
exceptionally brutal killing with multiple arrows, slowly
many battle deaths
a very graphic hand-to-hand combat sequence with a hideous demon
near death by drowning
Impudence/Hate (I)(1):
lies
Sex/Homosexuality (S):
none noted
Drugs/Alcohol (D):
smoking, repeatedly
drinking, repeatedly
Offense to God (O)(2):
claim of immortality
thousands of demonic beings of various sort, some extremely graphic
many uses and portrayals of wizardry/sorcery
many threats by unholy things
multiple battles with sorcery using sorcery, some very, very graphic
many attacks by evil beings, some (especially one) very, very hideous
portrayal that being stabbed by an evil being's sword will make the victim
evil
many instances of demonic faces/eyes
unholy control of the elements to fight evil
claims of immortality
ability to chose unholy mortality or immortality
many mystic voices
sorcery to open mountain wall
light by sorcery
Murder/Suicide (M)(3):
impalement then drowning murder ,
also happened in the Bible.
Ruben
rand mair fheal
<a.bruy...@chello.nl> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>These Christians are really hypocrites because everything they say what
>happened below:
>
>Wanton Violence/Crime (W):
>
>graphic injuries, including amputation and a beheading
>explosive startle
and at this point i know youre going to say the bible down below
the entire bible is not good reading for young children
and much it wont make sense anyway
(i think in judaism it is at age 12 child it assumed capable of
understanding the torah and become an adult)
the question is whether these christian reviews are intended for families
with young children or adults
(adults that need to be told what is moral enough to view shouild
doublecheck their adultness)
Paul Antonissen
<squidmonkeySPAMZOFF-...@news.earthlink.net>,
Spamwise Gamwich <squidmonk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.capalert.com/capreports/marypop/marypop.htm
--
*****************************************************************************
-Reverend Paul (ULC)
Santa: You're right kids. I'm sorry Jesus.
Jesus: No, no. It's me who should be sorry. I've been a right bastard.
I'm sorry Kringle.
Santa: Thank you boys.
Jesus: Yeah, thank you boys.
Come on, Kringle, I'll buy you an Orange Smoothie.
_Spirit of Christmas_ from South Park
Poopie Pants
"Luke Hooft" <luk...@ihug.com.au> wrote in message
news:3c24498b$0$21523$603e...@news.adl.ihug.com.au...
Its the same phenomenon that happens when you watch someone doing something
really dumb and make a fool of themselves. (Jerry Springer and COPS come to
mind) . One can not help but stare at the pitiful.....
>
> LH
>
>
>
Boris Badenov
|http://www.capalert.com/capreports/lordofrings_fellowship.htm
From that same review:
This movie is likely another maneuver to capitalize on the new found infatuation of
visually oriented youth with bright and dazzling display of the occult, witchcraft and
evil. It is another presentation of using evil to fight evil. And it presents sorcery as
both "good" and bad. Violently. Grotesquely. While the story being based on evil fighting
evil with evil is bad enough, it is clear the filmmakers capitalized on extremism. Tolkien
certainly described the evil and demonic characters in his novel quite grotesquely but not
nearly as hideous and vile as those in this movie. After more than 500 movies I suspect I
can say with credibility that any of the imagery of evil you have seen before now does not
match the evil in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. And there are two
more Lord of the Rings coming
I am a Christian, a fundamentalist Christian, grateful to be one, and in agreement with
these folks often, but this is pure, unadulterated nonsense.
Peter C. Bogert
listening to all three books on tape (unabridged) over the last few months.
While I have not seen the movie (yet!), my own feeling about review sites
like this is that the reviewers have no concept of imagination. However, as
well meaning as they might be, they don't speak for all of us.
"Boris Badenov" <bb...@frostbite.falls.state.mn.us> wrote in message
news:nns92u0jqt0449d9i...@4ax.com...
William H. Hsu
> Capalert are kooks, nothing more, nothing less.
>> The Tolkien trilogy in book form is more than 1000 pages.
>> I guess that explains why this first of three Rings trilogy is 170 minutes
>> long! Great day in the morning! Three hours! But all is not lost in boredom
>> and bathroom. The story is relatively attention-keeping though often
>> dream-like. The scenery is breath-taking. The computer aided choreography
>> made this movie a masterpiece of its own and a tribute to technology. The
>> blending of extremes of imagination with down to earth and believable
>> emotions is masterful. The performers are obviously experienced and
>> compatible with their parts. Such a combination of talents and skills to
>> create an absorbable story is indeed an influence...
YMMV, mais, not half bad so far. A thoughtful review - at least the
reviewer was watching and not just counting uses of four letter words
(though I shall be very impressed, bubhosh-skai, if he or she manages
to transtate curses in the Black Speech uttered in TTT).
>> which must be given somber and diligent thought because this is another
>> story of witchcraft, sorcery and wizardry. The opulence and immensity of
>> this book-to-film is truly a contender for your mind especially the
>> impressionable mind.
*sigh* Welp, we knew that was coming.
>> One of the 20 rings, named "My Precious", possessed the power to give
>> the wearer power of global proportion.
LOL!
>> The one ring conjured in the wearer insane lust.
>> Bilbo Baggins is in possession of the one ring.
Ergo, the E-Text...!
>> I am not going to try to debate the claims that Tolkien's Rings
>> trilogy parallels shards of the Truth shattered from the Bible.
That's no Bible, that's a Morgul-knife!
Seriously, now: I think there are two dogmatic views being propounded
here, and it behooves one to examine each in its turn.
The first is the assertion that JRRT's stories of Middle-earth, in
relating the fantastic and magical, flirt with occultism, a claim made
often in ignorance of the "monotheistic world of natural theology"
JRRT portrays consistently in LoTR and The Silmarillion. It's clear
to me that the author is at least somewhat AWARE of this, though, as
he or she skirts a critique of LoTR (the book) and focuses on LoTR:FoTR
(the film) - rightly so, for a movie review. What's interesting is
that the reviewer "refuses to debate" issues of JRRT's cosmology of
Ea and the meaning of the term "wizard" [*], but instead prefers to
cite popular comparisons of LoTR and HP without scrutiny or evaluation
[**]. In the end, I am not convinced that the reviewer has read the
books, which would seem to be a prerequisite for the broad brush that
he or she is applying to the whole of LoTR.
The second view is an ALL OUT DENUNCIATION of mythology, whether
presented as fiction, allegory, scripture, or satire! This is the
first I have heard of what is, to me, such an extreme view. Someone
who has read Bunyan's _Pilgrim's Progress_ more recently than I have
(c. 1982) can probably tell us: is this position for real? If so,
it would seem to pull the rug out from under a lot more than JRRT's
LoTR and CSL's TCoN.
[*] Christian fundamentalists come in all types. Some are very
dogmatic and literal in their interpretation of the King James
Version of the Christian Bible, i.e., terms from an early 17th-century
translation. A categorical application of selected quotations to the
entire concept of "white magic" seems quite untenable to me, but such
is the nature of religious dogma. I am curious, though, to know what
Hebrew or Greek word is being translated as "wizard" in the KJV verses
(Deuteronomy 18:9-12, Revelation 21:8, Galatians 5:19-21) that the
reviewer cites.
[**] I am told by some primary school debate referees that this is
standard practice in rhetoric; while I admit I have no personal
knowledge of whether that is true, it strikes me as somewhat
intellectually lazy. Can anyone confirm or refute this?
>> Satan is very good at making the truth into a lie through the most
>> innocent vehicles and by the least obvious methods. Nor am I going
>> to try to debate the involvement of C. S. Lewis in Tolkien's life
>> who placed the Gospel on the level of a myth in 1931 after a
>> dinner with Tolkien.
>>>
>>> "Now the story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working
>>> on us the same way as the others, but with this tremendous
>>> difference that it Really happened: and one must be content to
>>> accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God's myth where
>>> the others are men's myths..."
>>
>> If you wish to delve deeper into these matters let me suggest you
>> visit the source of the above quotation.
>> http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/rings.htm
Now, I actually went and read this. It's not entirely clear to me
after doing so that the author of this review expects or wishes the
reader to do so, as the quote is (whether one agrees with it or not)
taken slightly out of context.
Do any historical scholars of the Inklings have comments to add to
this anecdote?
A few closing comments:
I can understand the noting of pipeweed and "this is a pint" (one of
the funniest lines in the movie, IMO) under drugs and alcohol, but
what was the "graphic imagery of imp[a]lement"? The cave troll's
unsuccessful attempt to pierce Frodo's mithril shirt? Worse, the
reviewer must have been asleep at the wheel to consider Sam's act of
self-sacrifice and loyal courage "wanton violence / crime". Though
it was a startling scene and may be "PG" material, no rating system
I can think of would class that scene as this one does.
-Bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "I have the most ill-regulated memory.
William H. Hsu | It does those things which it ought
bh...@cis.ksu.edu | not to do and leaves undone the things
Kansas State University | it ought to have done. But it has not
http://www.cis.ksu.edu/~bhsu | yet gone on strike altogether."
ICQ: 28651394 |
| -Dorothy L. Sayers, /Gaudy Night/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Hsu
If you read the review of Mary Poppins, you'll find a speculation that
MP may be angelic! Now, I realize that's just hyperbole, but given that
Gandalf is clearly stated to BE angelic, I find those reviews to be less
amusing than dangerously irrational and misleading.
"40 mathematical formulas in each numerical review" doesn't tell me much.
Of course, they (the Capalert writers) are certainly entitled to say
the same about us (the Tolkien fans).
-Bill
(oh, and Mickey IS diabolical. memember the Kin-Strife!)
John Savard
>Whether or not you are a Christian you will find them
>very interesting, but for different reasons.
That's NOT true, for the reason you acknowledge in the next sentence:
>And I'm sure there are many
>sensible Christians who are as annoyed by these folks as secular folks like
>me are.
It would be fairer, though, to say that there are many sensible
Fundamentalists and evangelicals who are as annoyed, et cetera: no
other Christians are likely to find merit in the site.
John Savard
<raoul...@journalist.comYOU-EVIL-BASTARD!> wrote, in part:
>Reading film reviews on Christian websites is one of my favorite internet
>passtimes. I especially recommend family.org and christiananswers.com
I'd say that the review at "family.org" wasn't _that_ bad; I'd say it
was largely accurate, although the idea of keeping a normal teenager
away from the movie because it would be "too violent" for him to watch
certainly seems extreme by conventional standards.
It looks like their review of Harry Potter might be hilarious, though.
I was unable to find a site using your other URL.
John Savard
<raoul...@journalist.comYOU-EVIL-BASTARD!> wrote, in part:
Perhaps you mean
Dylan Bryan-Dolman
> >> you visit the source of the above quotation.
> >> http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/rings.htm
And what a revolting, craven, joyless version of Christianity you will find
there if you do visit. The author is very shocked by Tolkien's argument
that...
"Man is not ultimately a liar. He may pervert his thoughts into lies, but he
comes from God, and it is from God that he draws his ultimate ideals ... Not
merely the abstract thoughts of man but also his imaginative inventions must
originate with God, and in consequence reflect something of eternal truth."
No, no, says the "Christian" reviewer, the humanity that God created is not
good, but a very bad thing indeed. He writes....
"The God of the Bible has a far lower view of the human imagination than
does Tolkien, and He certainly does not take credit for its mythical
speculations. Instead, He warns us repeatedly that the imagination of man's
heart is evil from his youth."
Well! God must be a very poor creator indeed, to have turned out such
shoddy stuff as the human mind. It is a good thing that this reviewer came
along to catalog God's mistakes.
Dylan
=dbd=
Scott Marquardt
>I am an evangelical (conservative) Christian as well. I just finished
>listening to all three books on tape (unabridged) over the last few months.
>
>While I have not seen the movie (yet!), my own feeling about review sites
>like this is that the reviewers have no concept of imagination. However, as
>well meaning as they might be, they don't speak for all of us.
These people are incapable of suspending disbelief, of appreciating a
story for what it is. They can't read fiction -- let alone fantasy! --
without expecting the "real world" to remain its reference point.
It's beyond ludicrous.
Yeah, I'm a Christian too, and this kind of stuff drives me insane.
- Scott
Brenda W. Clough
Dylan Bryan-Dolman wrote:
>
> No, no, says the "Christian" reviewer, the humanity that God created is not
> good, but a very bad thing indeed. He writes....
>
> "The God of the Bible has a far lower view of the human imagination than
> does Tolkien, and He certainly does not take credit for its mythical
> speculations. Instead, He warns us repeatedly that the imagination of man's
> heart is evil from his youth."
>
> Well! God must be a very poor creator indeed, to have turned out such
> shoddy stuff as the human mind. It is a good thing that this reviewer came
> along to catalog God's mistakes.
>
Furthermore, to believe that matter and creation is inherently evil is a
heresy. Manicheanism, I believe, heartily denounced by St. Augustine.
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough, author of DOORS OF DEATH AND LIFE
Reading on Wednesday December 19th at 7 pm
at KGB Bar, 85 east 4th St., New York City
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
William H. Hsu
>> >> If you wish to delve deeper into these matters let me suggest
>> >> you visit the source of the above quotation.
>> >> http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/rings.htm
>And what a revolting, craven, joyless version of Christianity you will find
>there if you do visit.
> [JRRT quote on "mythopoeia" snipped]
>No, no, says the "Christian" reviewer, the humanity that God created is not
>good, but a very bad thing indeed. He writes....
>"The God of the Bible has a far lower view of the human imagination than
>does Tolkien, and He certainly does not take credit for its mythical
>speculations. Instead, He warns us repeatedly that the imagination of man's
>heart is evil from his youth."
> [...]
I should have noted that Berit Kjos, the author of "Tolkien's _Lord of the
Rings_: Truth, Myth or `Discovered Reality'?", also does not seem to
encourage the reader to take JRRTs remarks in their full context.
I just received a copy of _Letters_ and gave my father a copy of Carpenter's
biography for Christmas, so I hope to gain a bit more perspective on the
dinner described in this anecdote (and said to be one of the events that led
to Lewis's reversion to Christianity).
Dave Leckie
go look it up on google or something...
--
Silliness,
Dave "If a quiz is quizical, what's a test?" Leckie
Dr. Riff-Raff in training
Winner, "Most viscious list", 1999
Emperor Overlord of the Rhinoceros Party of Canada
"The Emperor wants to control outer space. Yoda wants to explore
innerspace. That's the fundamental difference between the good and the
bad sides of the force." - Moff, Human Traffic
William H. Hsu
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/rings.htm
interprets reverence of the Valar as:
a) deism / impersonal monotheism
b) personal polytheism
c) idolatry
in a 0-to-unquestioning-newspeak-in-60-seconds series of non-sequiturs.
(Wlokay, I supposed if one revered Manwe one might be taken as a deist,
as he seems to be a bit of a couch potato sometimes. #-))
Now, IIRC there are places in HoME and Sil where the Valar are called
gods by Men, but it's pretty clear to me that the Eldar know the long
and short of it, that the Valar are Ainur and the "offspring of
(Iluvatar's) thought". That's pretty clear, IMO. If they have a bone
to pick, why not go after Eddings, who never shrinks from caling Aldur
and the pantheon of the _Belgariad_ a pantheon? (Oh, but that would
be too much work, quel dommage. There's only so much fantasy one can
stomach in slamming fantasy, je suppose.)
"Since Tolkien denies any supposed allegorical link between his myth
and Biblical truth, it's not fair to hold his stories accountable
to that truth."
So, allegory is "OK"? What, precisely, does this group believe
justifies this stance?
Craig (crai...@home.com) posted the following complete quote just
yesterday:
'Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of
those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike
allegory in all its manifestations, and have always done so since I grew old
and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or
feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of
readers. I think that many confuse "applicability" with "allegory"; but the
one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed
domination of the author.'
- J.R.R. Tolkien
So, taking the professor at his word, I suppose he is renouncing the
immunity proffered by some right-wing fundamentalist and evangelical
Christians, in exchange for "purposed domination", as it were. Well,
thank you, Professor Tolkien, from the bottom of my heart.
Sydney Assbasket
and stuff in the Bible and send it to these people.
________________________________________________________________
If love of money is the root of all evil, why do churches want it so badly?
Remove "bination" to reply.
Liam Devlin
More importantly, it gives the leaders the names of the "loose" boys &
girls, which narrows their search considerably:-)
Liam Devlin
Which explains your screen name of "Boris BADenov"?
You've got some 'splaining to do, boy.
Liam Devlin
>
> Anybody remember the "Americans for Purity"? Damn that site was funny...
> go look it up on google or something...
You mean they're gone? What happened, their leaders get caught having
sex with children or something?
(smiley omitted because this is too likely to be true, e.g., Covenent
House)
Nick F.
australia.
But my anger at them is lessened slightly at the fact that they seem to be
advocating change in the classification system and protection of children,
rather than change in the content of the movies or restricting the viewing
choices of adults.
Nick F.
damnfine wrote:
> Chad Millar wrote:
> > Capalert are kooks, nothing more, nothing less.
> >
> > Their reviews are good for nothing but laughing at.
>
> Reading film reviews on Christian websites is one of my favorite internet
> passtimes. I especially recommend family.org and christiananswers.com
>
damnfine
> >christiananswers.com
>
> Perhaps you mean
>
> http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/home.html
Yeah, sorry. I have it bookmarked, I never need to actually remember the URL.
;)
Rosy with a why
Sorry, I just can't get my head around that. Sensible religious
people? Sensible HARDORE religious people?!
Oh, it's a joke. D'oh!
(I surely can't be alone in noticing that all religious people are
idiots?)
Hadrian Jonathan
"Dylan Bryan-Dolman" <DylanBD*SPAM*B*GONE*@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:QP7V7.9415$Cw3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > >> If you wish to delve deeper into these matters let me suggest
> > >> you visit the source of the above quotation.
> > >> http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/rings.htm
>
> And what a revolting, craven, joyless version of Christianity you will
find
> there if you do visit. The author is very shocked by Tolkien's argument
> that...
>
> "Man is not ultimately a liar. He may pervert his thoughts into lies, but
he
> comes from God, and it is from God that he draws his ultimate ideals ...
Not
> merely the abstract thoughts of man but also his imaginative inventions
must
> originate with God, and in consequence reflect something of eternal
truth."
>
idealistic waffle.. some of it does have a ring of truth <pun pun> but
really, how much across the universe dot to dot bullshit backed arguments
can we indulge ourselves in to substantiate our flimsy realities!! Call a
spade a spade, take responsibility for your actions, your behaviours, your
thoughts, your life. Make no excuses. Be honest in who you are and who you
want to be and enjoy this journey called life. Perhaps that's my dot to dot
;)
> No, no, says the "Christian" reviewer, the humanity that God created is
not
> good, but a very bad thing indeed. He writes....
>
> "The God of the Bible has a far lower view of the human imagination than
> does Tolkien, and He certainly does not take credit for its mythical
> speculations. Instead, He warns us repeatedly that the imagination of
man's
> heart is evil from his youth."
where is this in the bible? sounds a little out of context to me...
>
> Well! God must be a very poor creator indeed, to have turned out such
> shoddy stuff as the human mind. It is a good thing that this reviewer
came
> along to catalog God's mistakes.
The right of choice, something we have had since the dawning of time must
bear some responsibility don't you think... Kinda like wanting all the
choices and freedoms without the responsibility of the outcomes. There is
always choice. But there is always consequence. The Good, The Bad and The
Ugly.... I can hear those guitars already....
>
> Dylan
> =dbd=
>
>
Jeffrey C. Dege
>powers come from God, and as such he is not a sorcerer or wizard in the
>normal sense. The reviewer makes no acknowlegement of this,
In fairness, this doesn't come across clearly in the movie.
>regarding it
>simply as an example of the use of evil to fight evil, which is a form of
>insidious attack on Chrisitanity by secularists who are unknowingly
>influenced by "the adversary".
Someday, I'd like to have a little chat with these folks about the Sin
of Manicheanism.
Tolkien understood it quite well:
The Iluvatar spoke, and he said: `Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest
among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I
am Iluvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth,
that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no
theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can
any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall
prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful,
which he himself hath not imagined.'
- J.R.R. Tolkien, "Ainulindale, The Music of the Ainur"
>P.S. In the above paragraph I am by no means grouping Wiccans with
>Satanists, I'm just saying that a lot of Christians usually do.
I'd not call them "a lot".
--
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit
materiari?
J D Leister
sister Tamar in the OT
John Savard
Hsu) wrote, in part:
>What's interesting is
>that the reviewer "refuses to debate" issues of JRRT's cosmology of
>Ea and the meaning of the term "wizard" [*], but instead prefers to
>cite popular comparisons of LoTR and HP without scrutiny or evaluation
>[**].
For the reviewer's purposes, doing so is entirely appropriate. The
reviewer is concerned whether the movie will, in practice, have the
effect of making people more tolerant of, or fascinated with, occult
and magical beliefs and practices.
It could still do so if acts by Gandalf in the movie _appear_ to be by
such means to the typical viewer, even if diligent reading of the book
would disclose they were really miracles or exercises of angelic
power.
(I _really_ hate to be defending these people, but I follow logic
where it leads.)
John Savard
<DylanBD*SPAM*B*GONE*@earthlink.net> wrote, in part:
>Well! God must be a very poor creator indeed, to have turned out such
>shoddy stuff as the human mind. It is a good thing that this reviewer came
>along to catalog God's mistakes.
I thought that Oolong Coluphid already took care of that...
J D Leister
For what purpose?
I can tell you that that this church there were a number
of these leaders having affairs with other leaders wives?
Senior Pastors who would have regular perves on all the
women in the front row with skirts on from their seats on
the platform.........
Some of those "loose girls" were bloody good shags
David Salo
(Jeffrey C. Dege) wrote:
> Someday, I'd like to have a little chat with these folks about the Sin
> of Manicheanism.
Manichaeism isn't a sin, it's a heresy. And it isn't really a
heresy either, because that would imply that it was a form of
Christianity...
DS
mary b
<raoul...@journalist.comYOU-EVIL-BASTARD!> wrote:
> Chad Millar wrote:
> > Capalert are kooks, nothing more, nothing less.
> >
> > Their reviews are good for nothing but laughing at.
>
> Reading film reviews on Christian websites is one of my favorite internet
> passtimes. I especially recommend family.org and christiananswers.com
http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/2001/thelordoftherings.html
Rob Whyte
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 20:28:41 +1030, "damnfine"
> <raoul...@journalist.comYOU-EVIL-BASTARD!> wrote:
> [alt.fan.tolkien removed]
>>Chad Millar wrote:
>>> Capalert are kooks, nothing more, nothing less.
>>> Their reviews are good for nothing but laughing at.
>> Reading film reviews on Christian websites is one of my favorite internet
>> passtimes. I especially recommend family.org and christiananswers.com
>> Consistently hilarious.
> They are consistant, I'll give them that.
CAP Alert is consistent because it's one guy. He tries to pretend that the
site is the mouthpiece for some huge organised group, but it's really just
one sad little fundamentalist whacko who spends all his time at the movies
noting down how many times characters day the word "fuck".
http://ojr.usc.edu/content/print.cfm?print=633
--
Robert Whyte
r...@whytefamily.net
Ruben
"rand mair fheal" <mair_...@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mair_fheal-22...@c21.ppp.tsoft.com...
> In article <kA0V7.145411$Iw1.4...@nlnews00.chello.com>, "Ruben"
> <a.bruy...@chello.nl> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >These Christians are really hypocrites because everything they say what
> >happened below:
> >
> >Wanton Violence/Crime (W):
> >
> >graphic injuries, including amputation and a beheading
> >explosive startle
>
> and at this point i know youre going to say the bible down below
> the entire bible is not good reading for young children
> and much it wont make sense anyway
Did I? Than everything must be black or white to you?
Ruben
JRStern
>> Someday, I'd like to have a little chat with these folks about the Sin
>> of Manicheanism.
>
> Manichaeism isn't a sin, it's a heresy. And it isn't really a
>heresy either, because that would imply that it was a form of
>Christianity...
I think it was named an official heresy, and to believe in heresy is a
sin, if we want to be precise.
J.
JRStern
"Now note that this PG-13 movie had no foul language and no sexual
issues of any kind which is extremely atypical of PG-13 movies. BUT,
the Wanton Violence/Crime and Offense to God scores were both zero,
indicating an extremely graphic movie in violence and extremely
concentrated in unholy/evil issues."
So much for Arwen.
"This movie is likely another maneuver to capitalize on the new found
infatuation of visually oriented youth with bright and dazzling
display of the occult, witchcraft and evil."
Er, yeah, that must be it. Good thing JRRT had the Satanic foresight
to write the damned thing fifty years ago.
"It is another presentation of using evil to fight evil."
Another reviewer who does not grok the book, much less the movie.
"And it presents sorcery as both "good" and bad. Violently.
Grotesquely."
Violently good sorcery? I missed it. OK, Gandalf damaged a bridge.
"While the story being based on evil fighting evil with evil is bad
enough, it is clear the filmmakers capitalized on extremism. Tolkien
certainly described the evil and demonic characters in his novel quite
grotesquely but not nearly as hideous and vile as those in this
movie."
Grammar needs correction, but the point is unfortunately valid.
"After more than 500 movies I suspect I can say with credibility that
any of the imagery of evil you have seen before now does not match the
evil in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. And there
are two more Lord of the Rings coming."
Surely this is a misrepresentation under anybody's system. Somebody
do an exorcism on this guy before he floats off the bed and out the
window.
J.
Luke Hooft
William H. Hsu <bh...@ringil.cis.ksu.edu> wrote in message
news:a02u59$37p$1...@ringil.cis.ksu.edu...
> Gandalf is clearly stated to BE angelic, I find those reviews to be less
> amusing than dangerously irrational and misleading.
Irrational is definitely the word to describe such people. Didi anyone see
this Sunday's episode of "Evolution" about creationists vs evolutionism?
LH
Luke Hooft
> I can understand the noting of pipeweed and "this is a pint" (one of
> the funniest lines in the movie, IMO) under drugs and alcohol, but
> what was the "graphic imagery of imp[a]lement"? The cave troll's
> unsuccessful attempt to pierce Frodo's mithril shirt? Worse, the
> reviewer must have been asleep at the wheel to consider Sam's act of
> self-sacrifice and loyal courage "wanton violence / crime". Though
> it was a startling scene and may be "PG" material, no rating system
> I can think of would class that scene as this one does.
Read the HP review, it describes Ron's actions in the chess game as
(paraphrasing) willingness to commit suicide in order for comrades to
succeed under "murder/suicide". Oh, you mean like all those policemen and
firefighters on sept-11 were "willing to commit suicide" to save others'
lives? Where I come from that's called "self-sacrifice", "heroism" and
"courage".
LH
William H. Hsu
>On 22 Dec 2001 15:22:41 -0600, bh...@ringil.cis.ksu.edu (William H.
>Hsu) wrote, in part:
>>What's interesting is
>>that the reviewer "refuses to debate" issues of JRRT's cosmology of
>>Ea and the meaning of the term "wizard" [*], but instead prefers to
>>cite popular comparisons of LoTR and HP without scrutiny or evaluation
>>[**].
>For the reviewer's purposes, doing so is entirely appropriate. The
>reviewer is concerned whether the movie will, in practice, have the
>effect of making people more tolerant of, or fascinated with, occult
>and magical beliefs and practices.
All right, I'll grant that - but in that case, why is he expending
equal effort in critiquing PJ (the author of the screenplay and
director of the film) and JRRT (the author of the original source
material)? If he is concerned only with the POV provided by the film,
he is delving pretty deeply into the backstory. One can hardly have it
both ways.
Also, what is the relevance to JRRT's influence on CSL in that case?
The site he links to is (a) biographical, scrutinizing JRRT's life in
a much broader context than the movie review; (b) cites and critiques
_Letters_ with great meticulousness; (c) discusses themes of JRRT's
cosmology not divulged in LoTR but in the Silmarillion and HoME.
The author cannot have his cake and eat it too; either he is critiquing
the cultural and religious impact of _JRRT's fiction_ OR he is limiting
his commentary to the perceptions generated by the film.
>It could still do so if acts by Gandalf in the movie _appear_ to be by
>such means to the typical viewer, even if diligent reading of the book
>would disclose they were really miracles or exercises of angelic
>power.
>(I _really_ hate to be defending these people, but I follow logic
>where it leads.)
Very well, then - setting aside our disagreements with the reviewer for
the moment...
Then why give an incomplete critique of the book?
Why make no distinction between JRRT and PJ?
Why allude to JRRT's perspectives on fairy-stories?
I doubt that you believe that the reviewer could be mollified by (for
example) an added voiceover by Galadriel that unequivocally identifies
the wizards as divine messengers (forget, momentarily, that this might
be a potentially damaging spoiler in the context of the film). If you
did, you'd probably find it difficult to convince me, in the face of
the author's insistence at taking any non-allegorical work fantasy or
"mythopoeia" at its literal word. e.g., the review interprets:
- elves -> humans who to whom is ascribed a "claim to immortality"
(that is the direct inference from the review)
- orcs -> demons
(in despite of PJ's commitment to the SPECULATION from Silm that
orcs are Elvish in origin)
In some ways, there is a kind of assiduous denial in the review that
might be summarized as "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck,
and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, whatever people call it; but if
it doesn't, and people DO call it a duck, it's still a duck".
Substitute terms such as "blasphemy", "occultism", "violence", etc.
for "duck" as appropriate.
For the record, I do not find CapAlert's reviews to be self-consistent
nor its deprecation of fantasy fiction to be universal. Take its
review of _Michael_ (which I have not seen): held to the same intolerant
standard as was applied to FoTR, I doubt its score would be so high
(I find the assertion that "Offense to God" was "slammed seriously"
though it received 69% quite disingenuous).
http://www.capalert.com/capreports/michael/michael.htm
If this does not convince you of the inconsistency, take a look at the
review of _A.I._ (which received an overall score of 70):
http://www.capalert.com/capreports/artificialintelligence.htm
"This analysis relied more optics than literal translation, meaning for
example when Osment committed suicide, though it was in the story a
robot, the imagery was a young lad killing himself. That is what kids
will likely empathize with rather than a robot. And when the party
goers stabbed Osment with a knife, the optics were one boy stabbing
another boy, not a robot."
Fine and good if that is what the review system prescribes; utter
nonsense when a double standard, motivated by the agency's unstated
sociopolitical agenda (namely, to denounce depiction of magic in
popular culture), is applied to different films of the SF genre such as
FoTR and A.I. I noted with suprise, for example, that the reviewer
ignored all issues stemming from the depiction of artificial sentient
beings, not something I would have expected from a religious media
review site. (I realize that the two reviewers come from very different
backgrounds; the one for A.I. is a self-professed sci-fi fan and
computer hobbyist.)
(Nitpick: the 'I' item under W.I.S.D.O.M. is variously expanded as
"Impunity", "Immunity", and "Impudence". I believe it is meant to
denote the latter, but it really leaves a poor impression of the
reviewers' competence and consistency, if one did not already have one.)
Just my $0.02,
Paul Kellaway
christian themes?
"Luke Hooft" <luk...@ihug.com.au> wrote in message
news:3c243ba8$0$21523$603e...@news.adl.ihug.com.au...
> http://www.capalert.com/capreports/lordofrings_fellowship.htm
>
> If you're not familiar with the above website check out some of the other
> reviews they have. Whether or not you are a Christian you will find them
> very interesting, but for different reasons. And I'm sure there are many
> sensible Christians who are as annoyed by these folks as secular folks
like
> me are. But to be fair, the main point of these reviews are to describe
the
> content of a movie (without ANY consideration of context and intent) to
help
> Christian parents decide whether or not movies are suitable for their
> children, using objective(?) mathematical formulas and techniques.
>
> Interestingly, in the sex/homosexuality category they say "none noted",
> meaning they understand the true nature of Sam and Frodo's love, which is
> totally platonic. Although perhaps their supposed "homosexuality" will be
> something to complain about in the next two movies and not really apparent
> in the first.
>
> But the "wanton violence/crime" categories and "offence to God" get scores
> of zero. As usual, they make no distinction between the magic/sorcery of
the
> real world (wiccan religion, satanism etcetera) which they regard to be
> undeniably real and invariably evil, and the magic of myth and fairy tale,
> powers come from God, and as such he is not a sorcerer or wizard in the
> simply as an example of the use of evil to fight evil, which is a form of
> insidious attack on Chrisitanity by secularists who are unknowingly
> influenced by "the adversary".
>
Lee Ann Rucker
> Dylan Bryan-Dolman wrote:
>
> >
> > No, no, says the "Christian" reviewer, the humanity that God created is not
> > good, but a very bad thing indeed. He writes....
> >
> > "The God of the Bible has a far lower view of the human imagination than
> > does Tolkien, and He certainly does not take credit for its mythical
> > speculations. Instead, He warns us repeatedly that the imagination of man's
> > heart is evil from his youth."
> >
> > shoddy stuff as the human mind. It is a good thing that this reviewer came
> > along to catalog God's mistakes.
> >
>
> heresy. Manicheanism, I believe, heartily denounced by St. Augustine.
>
> Brenda
Ah, but St Augustine is Catholic - to many fundamentalists, that makes
anything he says highly suspicious. All us Catholics are misguided at
best and in league with the devil at worst, you know. As for it being
an old heresy - it's amazing how many ideas that were discredited or
declared heretical centuries ago pop back up amongst the fundies, who
treat them as if they were brand new.
William H. Hsu
>William H. Hsu <bh...@ringil.cis.ksu.edu> wrote in message
>news:a02tj1$35n$1...@ringil.cis.ksu.edu...
>> what was the "graphic imagery of imp[a]lement"? The cave troll's
>> unsuccessful attempt to pierce Frodo's mithril shirt? Worse, the
>> reviewer must have been asleep at the wheel to consider Sam's act of
>> self-sacrifice and loyal courage "wanton violence / crime". Though
>> it was a startling scene and may be "PG" material, no rating system
>> I can think of would class that scene as this one does.
>Read the HP review, it describes Ron's actions in the chess game as
>(paraphrasing) willingness to commit suicide in order for comrades to
>succeed under "murder/suicide". Oh, you mean like all those policemen and
>firefighters on sept-11 were "willing to commit suicide" to save others'
>lives? Where I come from that's called "self-sacrifice", "heroism" and
>"courage".
What the trask happened to John 15:13 ("Greater love hath no man than this,
that a man lay down his life for his friends")?
I guess that's "as long as they don't show it in graphic detail in
celluloid". Right-wing religious people say that popular culture is
changing for the worse, but it would clearly seem by this that the
assertion cuts both ways.
-Bill
Paul Kellaway
feature film, the miniseries which I think was made by the scifi channel (i
haven't seen it) or the book itself, with all its excerpts from the 'bible'.
I can't remember the details exactly, as I haven't read the book for a long
time but there is a lot of references to a form of Christianity...I think.
PK
Liam Devlin
QED
J D Leister
should not even be criticising his work
John
J D Leister
Did anyone use the email link on the page to mail this loony?
John
J D Leister
is the address it was listed there on the bottom of the
LOTR review......
Lord Jubjub
J D Leister <joh...@senet.com.au> wrote:
> J.A.R. Tolkien is catholic I think so they
> should not even be criticising his work
>
J.R.R. Tolkien. But considering that many Protestant fundamentalists
consider Catholicism to be from the devil. . .
--
Lord Jubjub
Ruler of the Jabberwocky, Guardian of the Wabe, Prince of the Slithy Toves,
Leader of the raths, Keeper of the Bandersnatch
David Salo
wrote:
It's a categorial error. To be more precise, there is a "Manichean
heresy" in the heresy catalogs of the Church, and there is the
non-Christian Manichaean religion, and they really haven't got anything
to do with each other, the "Manichean heresy" being pretty much
imaginary. It's sort as if some medieval guy had invented an "Islamic
heresy" which was defined by the denial of Jesus' divinity and his
identification as a prophet, but which, being defined as a Christian
heresy, could only apply to baptized Christians (non-Christians cannot,
by definition, be heretics). Such a heresy, while perhaps based *on*
Islam, could not possibly be the same thing as Islam; it's the same
thing with the "Manichean heresy". Manichaeans were not baptized
Christians, unless they happened to be converts from Christianity.
DS
Scott Marquardt
>"Now note that this PG-13 movie had no foul language and no sexual
>issues of any kind which is extremely atypical of PG-13 movies. BUT,
>the Wanton Violence/Crime and Offense to God scores were both zero,
>indicating an extremely graphic movie in violence and extremely
>concentrated in unholy/evil issues."
Someone already mentioned it -- this means the Bible itself would score
a zero.
I'm a Christian, and I for one can't stand being associated with utter
dunderheads. This is proof that salvation is necessary! ;-)
>"This movie is likely another maneuver to capitalize on the new found
>infatuation of visually oriented youth with bright and dazzling
>display of the occult, witchcraft and evil."
>Er, yeah, that must be it. Good thing JRRT had the Satanic foresight
>to write the damned thing fifty years ago.
The irony is that the paragraph depends on undue reliance on inferential
warrant that's only possible of one has embaced a thoroughly modernist
epistemology. It remains one of the most daunting ironies that
fundamentalists often rail against modernity using modernity's tools.
One might even say they don the ring to battle Sauron. It's the weirdest
thing. In view of which:
>"It is another presentation of using evil to fight evil."
..is risible beyond belief. No, it's pathetic.
>Another reviewer who does not grok the book, much less the movie.
Right.
- Scott
Dharmadeva
Untogether
> how comes cap alert claim LOTR to be demon spawn yet family.org say it has
> christian themes?
Because one, or the other, are infidels.
Toodleoo...
Liam Devlin
So what was it?
Liam Devlin
We're back to groking - all's right with the world:-)
Peter B. Juul
> no way can draw any ideals or inspiration from dogma of Xianity
No you no go learn no grammar no either.
--
Peter B. Juul, o.-.o "This was bad grammar of course, but that is how beavers
The RockBear. ((^)) talk when they are excited; I mean, in Narnia - in our
I speak only 0}._.{0 world they usually don't talk at all."
for myself. O/ \O -Lewis
Steve Hayes
<u96...@student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>no way can draw any ideals or inspiration from dogma of Xianity
Good thing Tolkien wasn't a way then.
--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: haye...@yahoo.com
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/litmain.htm
David Salo
<Lia...@optonline.net> wrote:
A different religion, an emanationist dualist semi-pantheism in
which Christ is only one of several "Messengers of Light", without
Christian baptism or any other Christian sacraments, and its own
distinctive religious texts and rituals. It had a good run of about
fifteen or sixteen centuries, but is now quite dead.
DS
JRStern
wrote:
>>"It is another presentation of using evil to fight evil."
>
>..is risible beyond belief. No, it's pathetic.
Come to think of it, if Gandalf wanted to fight evil with evil, ...
oh, never mind. <g>
J.
Boris Badenov
|(I surely can't be alone in noticing that all religious people are
|idiots?)<-----We call this bigotry where I come from...
Boris Badenov
|JRStern wrote:
|
|>"Now note that this PG-13 movie had no foul language and no sexual
|>issues of any kind which is extremely atypical of PG-13 movies. BUT,
|>the Wanton Violence/Crime and Offense to God scores were both zero,
|>indicating an extremely graphic movie in violence and extremely
|>concentrated in unholy/evil issues."
|
|Someone already mentioned it -- this means the Bible itself would score
|a zero.
[snip]
In defense of the Christian, he offers subjective impressions to support his beliefs (and
the belief in question is not under consideration here), and the rest of the world asks,
"Where's your evidence? Your misgivings apply only to you because all such feelings are
by their nature personal." So, he gathers empirical evidence, starts counting acts of
violence, incidents of profanity, offenses to God..whatever, and the rest of the world
says he is obsessed with minutiae, fails to consider a larger message, has his mind in the
gutter, etc, etc.
This is called a double bind, and it is a classic tactic of non-Christians to belittle
Christian world views. I'm not specifically accusing you of anything, nor am I saying I
am in sympathy to CAPalert and their views. But I do know a little bit about how they
think, and how they came to think that way.
What many non-Christians don't realize or won't accept is that Christians are entitled to
their views of life, too, to make them known, as these folks do, and to do their utmost to
persuade others of those views. For their efforts, they are often called fanatics,
fascists, or fools. Often I find these labels more appropriate to their accusers.
Boris Badenov
|you forgot David's brother Absalon who rapes his
|sister Tamar in the OT
It was Amnon who raped Tamar. Absalom's sin was killing his brother for doing so.
Scott Marquardt
>This is called a double bind,
Hardly my issue. My issue with the review is in part its "Christ against
the world" viewpoint (see Niebuhr), but as should be apparent in my
brief post, my greater concern is with the mindless, gratuitous
judgmentalism behind the review. The mind that contrived the review
didn't even comprehend the genre sufficiently to engage it; I wonder how
such a mind can "hermeneut" the scripture it purports to find so central
to faith. That is, if you can't differententiate fantasy from
non-fiction (and that's apparent in the epistemology implied by the
pronouncements in the review), how can you tell the difference between
the differing genres in scripture?
The issue seems simple: we're dealing with a philistine who just doesn't
understand literature - or any other media. That such a person has the
gall to post reviews as if they could be of service to Inquiring Minds
is risible.
Good grief, the review is steeped in evidence that this reviewer reifies
every hint of metaphor. How can such a person possibly critique any
product of the human imagination?
Perhaps I wouldn't be so hard on such people if it weren't for the fact
that a close friend once drifted far in this direction, and never
returned.
- Scott
Liam Devlin
>
> In article <slrna2ap48...@jdege.visi.com>, jd...@jdege.visi.com
> (Jeffrey C. Dege) wrote:
>
> > Someday, I'd like to have a little chat with these folks about the Sin
> > of Manicheanism.
>
> Manichaeism isn't a sin, it's a heresy. And it isn't really a
> heresy either, because that would imply that it was a form of
> Christianity...
>
Could you expand on this, please?
Liam Devlin
Ah, this is more or less the way Webster's described it, i.e., as a
religion started in the 3rd century AD by Mani containing Zoroastrian,
Gnostic and other elements.
You can disregard my other question, same topic. Wouldn't someone who
claimed belief in Manicheanism be considered a heretic by the RC Church?
LiamD
Liam Devlin
>
(snip)
>
> This is called a double bind, and it is a classic tactic of non-Christians to belittle
> Christian world views. I'm not specifically accusing you of anything, nor am I saying I
> am in sympathy to CAPalert and their views. But I do know a little bit about how they
> think, and how they came to think that way.
>
> What many non-Christians don't realize or won't accept is that Christians are entitled to
> their views of life, too, to make them known, as these folks do, and to do their utmost to
> persuade others of those views. For their efforts, they are often called fanatics,
> fascists, or fools. Often I find these labels more appropriate to their accusers.
This is the classic "but WE're victims, too" smoke screen the religious
right trots out in public while they're busy trying to get their agenda
thru Congress, e.g., the US is a Christian country, public prayer in
schools, etc., and ripping the lungs out of anyone who doesn't agree
with them.
LiamD
Liam Devlin
He could summon Darth Vader or Khan from the future?
David Salo
<Lia...@optonline.net> wrote:
> You can disregard my other question, same topic. Wouldn't someone who
> claimed belief in Manicheanism be considered a heretic by the RC Church?
Only if he or she were a (baptized) Christian first, and still
claimed to be a Christian. If he or she were a baptized Christian and
had repudiated Christianity for Manichaeism, he or she would be an
apostate, not a heretic.
Definitions, from a Christian viewpoint:
Infidel: person believing in a non-Christian religion
Apostate: former Christian who abandons Christianity
Heretic: self-described Christian who accepts beliefs contrary to
those taught by the Church
Schismatic: Christian who accepts the Church's teachings but not her
authority
DS
Hadrian Jonathan
news:241220011745539293%ds...@usa.net...
How is it then that a pope was declared a heratic after his death Mr Smarty
Pants?
>
> DS
J D Leister
I knew it was in there somewhere.......
But still the rape of Tamar, I mean it was his sister and
how can you have the hots for your sister... That is incest
but because it's in the OT and in the Bible Xtians will
gloss over it........
David Salo
<had...@iHadrian.com> wrote:
> How is it then that a pope was declared a heratic after his death Mr Smarty
> Pants?
Which Pope? (of Rome? Alexandria? When?)
Frankly, I don't think you can declare someone to be
(contemporaneously) a heretic when he are dead, you can only declare
him to have been a heretic when he was alive.
DS
J D Leister
> http://www.capalert.com/capreports/lordofrings_fellowship.htm
And they even criticize the movie "Prince Of Egypt."
Now this movie is supposed to be about the life of
Moses and a lot of work went into this film by way
of study of the Old testament and other writings.
They wanted it to be historically accurate and based
on the life of Moses so it would stand to reason that
there are a few scenes in the movie that would need
to be kept in there.
But they even objected to this movie.
===========================================================
For instance:
The most severe loss of points was due to violence:
slavery, beatings, murder, infanticide, and babies
used as food for crocodiles (in a mural). Though
these things are not just based on a true story, but
ARE a true story, they are still violence and can have
an impact or influence on your children. Next in severity
of loss of points were matters of unholy reality such as
the demonic doers, calling on power from unholy gods, and
belittling remarks about the power of prayer and God's
sincerity. And, believe it or not, there was sexual material
in The Prince of Egypt: an "under-skirt" scene of the posterior
of the young Pharaoh with unmistakable reference to it, shadows
of a nude female on a curtain, and old women bathing a nude
Moses with Moses uttering an implicating remark. The Bible says
nothing about these three ignominies, so I guess they are
elements of "poetic license." But why are they in the movie
at all?
There are additional examples of light ignominious material
(see the full report) which also might influence your child's
behavior choices or might alter or misdirect his/her perception
of the Holy Father and His expectations of us -- each may require
your guidance -- but the bottom line is that this movie presented
God as He should be presented, at least the way He should be
presented to children; that this movie presented God as omnipotent
and omniscient. Good job, Spielberg!
===================================================================
hey guys this IS a movie about the life of Moses and he
did start life as a slave so you have to show how the
slaves were treated.
===========================================================
And here are the laughable bits:
Other examples of questionable programming, each warranting
the loss of the minimum point level, included
brutality of slavery, whipping
beating of an old woman by a soldier
grief of loss - mother abandoning her baby in a wicker
basket and setting it adrift in a river
animal attacks on the abandoned baby
scene of the posterior of the young Pharaoh with
unmistakable reference to it
reckless horseplay causing damage and danger
calling upon unholy gods and upon Ra (the Egyptian Sun god)
shadows of a nude female on a curtain
brutality on babies
painting of drowning babies as food for crocodiles (twice)
"gods, grant me a vision"
murder of a soldier by Moses
lies to cover up the murder
old women bathing a nude young Moses
scant dress on slaves revealing the lower folds of
the posterior
portrayal of the death of children at the hands
of soldiers
"prayer proved in vain"
an order to kill (by Pharaoh of the Israelites)
drowning of thousands
===========================================================
As I said this is a movie about Moses so they have to
include these things and it's a joke that they can
even find fault with a movie like this seeing as the
Bible is their base of doctrine......
John
Scott Marquardt
>But still the rape of Tamar, I mean it was his sister and
>how can you have the hots for your sister... That is incest
>but because it's in the OT and in the Bible Xtians will
>gloss over it........
??
What the heck are you talking about? Why would a Christian -- or a Jew,
for that matter, "gloss over it?"
- Scott
William H. Hsu
Precisely.
TARDIS, Shrike, or Guderian device?
--
Banazir the Jedi Hobbit
(works for fighting eViol with goond too)
Boris Badenov
|But still the rape of Tamar, I mean it was his sister and
|how can you have the hots for your sister... That is incest
|but because it's in the OT and in the Bible Xtians will
|gloss over it........
It was his half-sister. I don't know that Christians gloss over it. The one who did the
glossing over was David. One of his sons rapes one of his daughters, and he does nothing.
So, her full-blood brother takes matters into his own hands.
A final point: I don't know whether sexual relations among half-siblings was incestuous
at that point. If you believe the creation account at all, some conclusions are obvious:
1) We all descend from one set of parents
2) Adam and Eve had many children besides Cain, Abel and Seth. Gen 5:4
3) The only way for those children to produce children was to intermarry.
Obviously, at some point this became both medically and morally untenable, but when that
point was reached is not made clear. In any case, I am a bit more reluctant to point a
finger at them saying, shame, shame, when it may be I'm imposing my values on their
conduct.
Öjevind Lång
>Luke Hooft wrote:
>
>> http://www.capalert.com/capreports/lordofrings_fellowship.htm
>
>
>
>And they even criticize the movie "Prince Of Egypt."
[snip]
>scant dress on slaves revealing the lower folds of
>the posterior
Must have been really fat slaves.
Öjevind
J D Leister
> Liam Devlin <Lia...@optonline.net> writes:
>
> >JRStern wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 23:09:11 -0600, Scott Marquardt <no...@spam.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>"It is another presentation of using evil to fight evil."
> >> >
> >> >..is risible beyond belief. No, it's pathetic.
> >>
> >> Come to think of it, if Gandalf wanted to fight evil with evil, ...
> >> oh, never mind. <g>
> >>
> >> J.
>
> >He could summon Darth Vader or Khan from the future?
>
> Precisely.
> TARDIS, Shrike, or Guderian device?
Or that funky device in the "TNG Final Unity" game
James
Boris Badenov <bb...@frostbite.falls.state.mn.us> wrote in message
> 1) We all descend from one set of parents
> 2) Adam and Eve had many children besides Cain, Abel and Seth. Gen 5:4
> 3) The only way for those children to produce children was to intermarry.
>
> Obviously, at some point this became both medically and morally untenable,
but when that
> point was reached is not made clear. In any case, I am a bit more
reluctant to point a
> finger at them saying, shame, shame, when it may be I'm imposing my values
on their
> conduct.
This has gone way off topic, I don't want to read christian nonsense here.
Lee Ann Rucker
"Nick F." <ni...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3C253791...@optushome.com.au...
> They are religous wankers. Thank god there aren't many people like that
here in
> australia.
>
> But my anger at them is lessened slightly at the fact that they seem to be
> advocating change in the classification system and protection of children,
> rather than change in the content of the movies or restricting the viewing
> choices of adults.
>
I'm not so sure - if their only goal is to tell parents what they shouldn't
let their children see, why bother reviewing R-rated films - it should be
obvious children shouldn't see those.
David Salo
<seek...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
> Also FWIW... I consider myself a Christian, and I LOVED LOTR.
Is there a difference between being a Christian, and considering
yourself a Christian? I mean, if you're trying to avoid antagonizing
people who might not believe that you're a Christian, I'm not sure this
helps. Contrast the following dialogues:
(a)
You: I'm a Christian.
Jerk: No you're not.
(b)
You: I consider myself a Christian.
Jerk: Sorry, you're wrong!
DS
Hadrian Jonathan
Frankly or not Pope Honorious (625-638) was declared a heretic many moons
after his death when the third council of Constantinople (and the current
pope of the day) who felt that Christ would have to have a Divine will and
also a mans will otherwise he would not have been a man, (where Pope
Honorious declared that Jesus had two natures but one will) declared him and
his teachings heretical.......
....the rest as they say, is heretical history ;)
Hadrian.
DragnFlye
"Seeker" <seek...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1692cc91...@news.mindspring.com...
> FWIW, my pastor (ELCA) recently saw Harry Potter and LOVED it. He now
> refers to it from time to time in his sermons and gets no complaints that
> I know of. I don't know if he's seen LOTR yet, but I'm sure he'll find
> some time to see it between tomorrow and New Year's.
According to my mother, he's an apostate then. :P Lucky me, I get to live
with a fundy who does nothing but talk about how evil Harry Potter is. Once
I got into an argument with her about LotR.
DragnFlye, demonspawn
Dave Nottage
> 1) We all descend from one set of parents
> 2) Adam and Eve had many children besides Cain, Abel and Seth. Gen
5:4
> 3) The only way for those children to produce children was to
intermarry.
Didnt you know? They appeared out of thin air. Read the missing book of
the bible "ConvenientlyAssumedFacts".
--
D
Dave Nottage
> While I have not seen the movie (yet!), my own feeling about review
sites
> like this is that the reviewers have no concept of imagination.
Yeah, but using your imagination to think up such stuff (and to realise
it into a book or movie) is supposedly evil, coz someone might believe
it as being true, and/or act it out.
> However, as well meaning as they might be, they don't speak for all of
us.
I'm sure they dont, but I think the problem is that they think they are.
--
D
Dave Nottage
> > Come to think of it, if Gandalf wanted to fight evil with evil, ...
> > oh, never mind. <g>
>
Darth Vader was in the past.
--
D
bandersnatch
Hsu) wrote:
>Chad Millar wrote:
>
>> Capalert are kooks, nothing more, nothing less.
>
>>> The Tolkien trilogy in book form is more than 1000 pages.
>>> I guess that explains why this first of three Rings trilogy is 170 minutes
>>> long! Great day in the morning! Three hours! But all is not lost in boredom
>>> and bathroom. The story is relatively attention-keeping though often
>>> dream-like. The scenery is breath-taking. The computer aided choreography
>>> made this movie a masterpiece of its own and a tribute to technology. The
>>> blending of extremes of imagination with down to earth and believable
>>> emotions is masterful. The performers are obviously experienced and
>>> compatible with their parts. Such a combination of talents and skills to
>>> create an absorbable story is indeed an influence...
>
>YMMV, mais, not half bad so far. A thoughtful review - at least the
>reviewer was watching and not just counting uses of four letter words
>(though I shall be very impressed, bubhosh-skai, if he or she manages
>to transtate curses in the Black Speech uttered in TTT).
>
>>> which must be given somber and diligent thought because this is another
>>> story of witchcraft, sorcery and wizardry. The opulence and immensity of
>>> this book-to-film is truly a contender for your mind especially the
>>> impressionable mind.
>
>*sigh* Welp, we knew that was coming.
>
>>> One of the 20 rings, named "My Precious", possessed the power to give
>>> the wearer power of global proportion.
>
>LOL!
>
>>> The one ring conjured in the wearer insane lust.
>>> Bilbo Baggins is in possession of the one ring.
>
>Ergo, the E-Text...!
>
>>> I am not going to try to debate the claims that Tolkien's Rings
>>> trilogy parallels shards of the Truth shattered from the Bible.
>
>That's no Bible, that's a Morgul-knife!
>
>Seriously, now: I think there are two dogmatic views being propounded
>here, and it behooves one to examine each in its turn.
>
>The first is the assertion that JRRT's stories of Middle-earth, in
>relating the fantastic and magical, flirt with occultism, a claim made
>often in ignorance of the "monotheistic world of natural theology"
>JRRT portrays consistently in LoTR and The Silmarillion. It's clear
>to me that the author is at least somewhat AWARE of this, though, as
>he or she skirts a critique of LoTR (the book) and focuses on LoTR:FoTR
>(the film) - rightly so, for a movie review. What's interesting is
>that the reviewer "refuses to debate" issues of JRRT's cosmology of
>Ea and the meaning of the term "wizard" [*], but instead prefers to
>cite popular comparisons of LoTR and HP without scrutiny or evaluation
>[**]. In the end, I am not convinced that the reviewer has read the
>books, which would seem to be a prerequisite for the broad brush that
>he or she is applying to the whole of LoTR.
>
>The second view is an ALL OUT DENUNCIATION of mythology, whether
>presented as fiction, allegory, scripture, or satire! This is the
>first I have heard of what is, to me, such an extreme view. Someone
>who has read Bunyan's _Pilgrim's Progress_ more recently than I have
>(c. 1982) can probably tell us: is this position for real? If so,
>it would seem to pull the rug out from under a lot more than JRRT's
>LoTR and CSL's TCoN.
>
>[*] Christian fundamentalists come in all types. Some are very
>dogmatic and literal in their interpretation of the King James
>Version of the Christian Bible, i.e., terms from an early 17th-century
>translation. A categorical application of selected quotations to the
>entire concept of "white magic" seems quite untenable to me, but such
>is the nature of religious dogma. I am curious, though, to know what
>Hebrew or Greek word is being translated as "wizard" in the KJV verses
>(Deuteronomy 18:9-12, Revelation 21:8, Galatians 5:19-21) that the
>reviewer cites.
>
>[**] I am told by some primary school debate referees that this is
>standard practice in rhetoric; while I admit I have no personal
>knowledge of whether that is true, it strikes me as somewhat
>intellectually lazy. Can anyone confirm or refute this?
>
>>> Satan is very good at making the truth into a lie through the most
>>> innocent vehicles and by the least obvious methods. Nor am I going
>>> to try to debate the involvement of C. S. Lewis in Tolkien's life
>>> who placed the Gospel on the level of a myth in 1931 after a
>>> dinner with Tolkien.
>>>>
>>>> "Now the story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working
>>>> on us the same way as the others, but with this tremendous
>>>> difference that it Really happened: and one must be content to
>>>> accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God's myth where
>>>> the others are men's myths..."
This is correct. A true myth means it is definitely a myth, it is
fiction. I always love these people who will kill you to prove that
their assumptions are correct. After Osama and Jerry Falwell and damn
near anything on the 700 club or EWTN, I think religious
findamentalism should be declared a form of mental illness.
>>>
>>> If you wish to delve deeper into these matters let me suggest you
>>> visit the source of the above quotation.
>>> http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/rings.htm
>
>Now, I actually went and read this. It's not entirely clear to me
>after doing so that the author of this review expects or wishes the
>reader to do so, as the quote is (whether one agrees with it or not)
>taken slightly out of context.
>
>Do any historical scholars of the Inklings have comments to add to
>this anecdote?
>
>A few closing comments:
>
>I can understand the noting of pipeweed and "this is a pint" (one of
>the funniest lines in the movie, IMO) under drugs and alcohol, but
>what was the "graphic imagery of imp[a]lement"? The cave troll's
>unsuccessful attempt to pierce Frodo's mithril shirt? Worse, the
>reviewer must have been asleep at the wheel to consider Sam's act of
>self-sacrifice and loyal courage "wanton violence / crime". Though
>it was a startling scene and may be "PG" material, no rating system
>I can think of would class that scene as this one does.
>
>-Bill
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | "I have the most ill-regulated memory.
>William H. Hsu | It does those things which it ought
>bh...@cis.ksu.edu | not to do and leaves undone the things
>Kansas State University | it ought to have done. But it has not
>http://www.cis.ksu.edu/~bhsu | yet gone on strike altogether."
>ICQ: 28651394 |
> | -Dorothy L. Sayers, /Gaudy Night/
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liam Devlin
Middle Earth's past?
Chad Burnett
> (paraphrasing) willingness to commit suicide in order for comrades to
> succeed under "murder/suicide". Oh, you mean like all those policemen and
> firefighters on sept-11 were "willing to commit suicide" to save others'
> lives? Where I come from that's called "self-sacrifice", "heroism" and
> "courage".
Yes, completely *unlike* Christ's willingness to go to the cross. :-)
Chad...
Boris Badenov
|This is correct. A true myth means it is definitely a myth, it is
|fiction. I always love these people who will kill you to prove that
|their assumptions are correct. After Osama and Jerry Falwell and damn
|near anything on the 700 club or EWTN, I think religious
|findamentalism should be declared a form of mental illness.
Linking bin Laden and Falwell is guilt by association and is reprehensible. You find me
mentally ill, because I am a fundamentalist. I find you argumentative, and manifestly
incompetent to judge either fundamentalists (bet you don't even know what the word means
in this context) or mental illness.
Dave Nottage
> > Darth Vader was in the past.
>
Middle Earth was a long time ago.. Darth was a long, long time ago ;-)
--
D
Terry Austin
Terry Austin
Dylan Bryan-Dolman
> Linking bin Laden and Falwell is guilt by association and is
> reprehensible.
I don't know that he did link bin Laden and Falwell by association -- he was
probably thinking of bin Laden as guilty of egging the terrorists on before
the fact, and Falwell as guilty of justifying them after the fact, as he did
(we are all familiar with his disgusting remarks) on the very day of the
murders.
> You find me mentally ill, because I am a fundamentalist.
You'll be pleased to hear that I don't consider you mentally ill, Boris.
However, I do consider you an incompetent reader of serious religious
thought, which is far richer and more challenging than the shallow
reductions of fundamentalism are capable of understanding or living up to.
Tolkien's non-fiction is an excellent guide for beginners to approaching
religious texts. I am surprised that as a Tolkien fan you can reconcile
your sterile reductionism with Tolkien's warmly expansive, lifegiving
approach to holy books.
Dylan
=dbd=