This movie will be EXTREMELY interesting to see reaction to it.
a1138.g.akamai.net/7/1138...onhigh.mov (http://a1138.g.akamai.net/7/1138/10507/v0001/createanet.download.akamai.com/10507/quicktime/quicktimedownload/passionhigh.mov)
The movie itself is supposed to be phenomenal. Cant wait to see the impact it has..
As odd as this may sound, I expect this to be a watershed event for christianity in the West with a societal impact going beyond the movie itself.
Wether good or bad that impact, I dont know.

I think i might actually go see that movie. I can't believe all the crap the Mel Gibsons gotten for making this movie but with him directing it should be a good film.



Piyn

Die Quicktime Die Die Die.

:lol (pokes fun at the fictional guy who died on the cross)

I`ll leave it at that,no point turning this into another boring 'god debate' they never go anywhere for obvious reasons.
As for a movie having an impact on christian society,...i`ll just snort cynically and be done with it.

Don`t get me wrong,this could be a great movie.I enjoy religious stuff,i just take it for what it is,fiction.

*Gives a big sarcastic wave to all the christians out there*
Seriously,i wonder how long people can continue to shut their eyes to reality and belive whatever the fuck makes them feel better.

Earth is center of universe ? umm no
Earth is flat ? umm no
Heaven is above the clouds ? umm no
Sex is wrong(catholic reference) ? Umm so no you freaks!
Blah,Blah,Blah

From a cinematic standpoint, I have strong expectations for the film. Gibson's certainly going the extra mile using "no name" actors and the languages of the time. I don't know that I'll bother to see it, but it sounds like a worthy effort.

Will it cause some kind of Christian revival? I think that whatever societal impact it has will be largely media driven. There might be some pro-Christian effect, but I think that (media borne) cautions regarding its allegedly anti-semitic message will counter that somewhat. It might even provoke some anger or hate on the part of those who already subscribe to anti-semitism.

But as a film, I expect it to do well on its own merits.

Isn't this the film where the lead actor has been hit by lightning twice?

I'm curious how it will go over with audiences, considering the major sepparation between this and other religious films is the support Gibson's name will lend to it.


-Kanyli

I am also looking forward to this from a film point of view. I'm not a christian, but I still find the story of jesus to be very interesting.

I think I cant start clarifying what my point was..
let me start with some pre-reviews of some film critics that had a chance to see this movie in its rough unfinished stages.

THE PASSION OF CHRIST. Okay, before I say anything else about this film, I want to say something. I am an atheist. I do not believe in god, Jesus, or the bible. I am not a Christian, I am not a Jew, I have no religion. I am also a card-carrying member of the ACLU and a supporter of the ARA (Anti-Racist Action, a youth-based anti-racism organization formed in a retaliation to the neo-nazi movement). I have no ill feelings toward any religion, belief, or race. My best friend is Catholic, my girlfriend is Baptist, my soon-to-be roommate is a Deist, one of my close friends is a Wiccan, and two of my ex-girlfriends are Jewish. When you read this review, remember all this.

The first thing I want to say about PASSION is that this is not a religious film. It’s a film. It’s an amazing, brilliant, incredible film. This is the film that everyone will be talking about in 2004. Unfortunately due to the press, they’re going to be talking about the wrong things.

So far, everyone has asked me if I liked this film. I did not like this film, but I did not dislike this film. I did not love this film, and I did not hate it. This film is beyond those type of descriptions. I cannot say I liked this film. But I can say this is probably one of the most important films – if not THE most important film – of this century so far. If anyone wants to make another grand film, this is going to be the yardstick it’s measured against.

This film is beautiful and ugly, epic and small. And this film is BRUTAL. Christians have turned the phrase “Jesus suffered for your sins” into a cliché. It’s lost all meaning by now. This film does an amazing job of making you KNOW what that phrase means. The MPAA is going to come down on this film like a fucking hammer, but Gibson should show it unrated if they tell him to cut a single frame.

I can’t say this enough about this film. IT IS BRUTAL. There is no way make this clear without actually showing the film. This just cannot be described in words. You can’t call it violent, you can’t call it bloody. It is BRUTAL. That’s the only word. And it NEEDS to be brutal. It needs to make you squirm in your seat for an hour. It needs to make you want to scream at the screen for it to end. It HAS to do these things. If it doesn’t then you can’t understand the point of this film. This film has to transcend the human tolerance for violence and brutality to make its point. And it does. And it works perfectly.
Different Reviewer
Taking on a movie about Jesus that isn’t pontificating and damning you for all eternity for not believing must’ve been a task unlike any other. No matter what Gibson does with this it is going to offend someone. It has even started to offend those who have never seen it. But guess what? He still did it and he did it majestically. This isn’t an “Onward Christian Soldiers” film. This was a film about a man who spread a message that was misunderstood, and about the people who loved him. The anti-semitism buzz about the film, well I have to address it because there are things that I can see might offend if you don’t step back and realize that almost everyone in the movie is Jewish, from the Pharisees who condemn, to the Pharisees who defend, the apostles who fought, and the man who bravely picked up the cross for Jesus and held him in his pain.

I don’t know how critical I can actually be about this movie because…I wept. It hit me like an emotional anvil and opened up and healed many battle scars I have had with my spiritual convictions. I remembered through this movie that it was all about love and it isn’t the message that turned me off so many years ago but the way the message was presented. The message has been resurrected, the movie made it move and breathe, it made it real yet divine. This is art in its highest form, and even though Mr Gibson claims it’s not finished, it was, in my mind, perfection.

And another reviewer.
THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST

It's an amazing film. I am Agnostic and have been my entire life. I've always respected the teachings of Christ, but despised what Christianity is as a religion. My closest friends are Christian and we've had many a discussion about the difference between being a true believer of the bible and Christ and being a mindless follower. Every single thing I hate about Christianity as a religion boils down to people not reading the bible, just following the interpretation by people like Pat Robinson and Billy Graham, who are driven more by vanity and greed than actual spirituality.

Religion is a touchy subject and I just wanted to make sure you know my feelings. Summed up, I'm an open-minded Agnostic. I respect Christianity for what it should stand for and what it is meant to stand for, but the greed and corruption that was so prevalent in Christ's time is in full swing in the now.

And another one..

I'm the type of person that is fairly non-religious, I guess I'm agnostic for sakes of survey classification. I liberally like to joke around about elements of Christian faith, there is just an odd evil sense of joy in my heart at offending people. Jesus is normally the central figure to alot of jokes I might make, I am even the proud loving owner of a Jesus Christ action figure complete with sliding holy action. I think it's fair to say that Jesus is an element of world culture, even if someone knows nothing about religion the name Jesus still will ring familiar. So I think it's fair to be totally non-secular, but interested in this film for the story's sake. Although to be honest that was not my key interest in looking forward to the film. I consider myself a bit of film-psychotic and so thats what makes me interested in this, so that has me there, sorry Jesus (if you were real).

Enough of me pompously preaching about myself, back to the film.

In the rough form that it was presented this film shows itself to be a major achievement in cinema. It was shown digitally, which was kind of odd since I guess they brought a projector to the alamo just for it. Although it was still early non-color-timed, so at many moments the film's look kind of "off" and unbalanced between shots. Still somehow there were shots escaped from the film that resonated with incredibly beauty like they had been ripped from old paintings. Also at several times green-dots were seen where later cgi would be added, now what was pretty striking is that watching it CGI felt unnecessary in those sequences. In that respect the film is perfect in that respect as is, every moment seemed to be described physically I never sat thinking that I was missing something to be added later.

The acting in the film is nothing less than amazing. How the fuck Mel Gibson got a cast together for an Aramaic film is beyond me, but how the hell they were able to act in it is even more stellar. I can't imagine the look on an actors face when being sent an aramaic script, god I wish I could have been in the room with Monica Belluci or Jim Cavieziel's agents, their reaction had to be beautiful. Caviziel has delivered a performance that will change his life forever, he is Jesus in this film, he is not Caviziel, in fact I still fail to relate this guy as being him. It's pretty amazing, I think that Mel pulled a Murnau and made a deal with God to get Jesus himself to act in this film. Belluci is good, although she feels like a foot-note to Maria Morgenstern's beautiful performance. Maria Morgenstern as mary, HOLY FUCKING GOD! The torment she goes through during the crucifixation to her work in the flashback sequences, this woman has some amazing talent. Every member of the cast has done the best jobs we will see on a screen for the next year. Expect this film to sweep the acting oscars in 2005.

Watching the passion is like watching a non-existant film of that period, it's a window to that world. A few years back I went to a retrospective of soviet films done during communism, and it really felt like a window to a whole different world, I'd liken the passion to watching those films. I know there have been millions of biblical films made, but they have the barrier of language, when it's all said and done it's still a staged retelling. The difference between watching The Passion and watching other Jesus films, is that when you are watching The Passion it's real and what you are watching feels like actual events unfolding. If I wasn't so much of a cynic, perhaps the passion just might have got me to look back into christianity. Sad I'm so cynical, but thats me maybe not you.

So.. the feel this film is giving me, before seeing it, is one of a work of Art, of Love, of Passion and intensity.
This "divine" inspiration has been with us for a long time, and seen in some of the greatest works of art and beauty man has created.
Michelangelo said once "The true work of art is but a shadow of the divine perfection"
He didnt just say that.. he LIVED it.
"Until you have seen the Sistine Chapel," observed German philosopher Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, "you have no adequate conception of what man is capable of accomplishing."
www.christusrex.org/www1/...-Tour.html (http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sistine/0-Tour.html)
or the Pieta
www.kfki.hu/~arthp/art/m/...pieta1.jpg (http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/art/m/michelan/1sculptu/pieta/1pieta1.jpg)

Is there truth in beauty?
I guess thats the question.
Can you look on a work of art, so powerful, so intense, that it moves people to tears and leaves people awestruck, and Not take a moment to look at what can move a man to create something torn from his soul?

Now was there a Jesus Christ? In all probablity.. yes. Its pretty much acknowledged that a man by that name lived in that time, was a known as preecher/prophet and was executed by the Romans.
Was he the Son of God? I dont know, I have my doubts.
Did he have message of Transcendant beauty that was divinely inspired? I think so.
We can see echos of this inspiration in so many great works of art.
Is this film in that catagory?
So far.. it seems to be.

*Gives a big sarcastic wave to all the christians out there*

tho i can see your point and i might agree with it myself, however, about a year ago i began to read some very interesting philosophy books. And one thing that kinda stands out is in a world of science why do people have love? Its the only unexplainable thing, no true definition, no measurement, and there are all kinds of lvls to it (friends, family, wife, child) Kinda makes you wonder what else is out there instead of one massive explosition.


Same can be said about a lot of human emotions, in a world of evolution explain where emotions evolved from...And why we as humans seem to carry them.


not trying to really start something just always nice to offer a different point of vision on any given subject, I am and always have been a open person that likes to discuss. How do you know your answers are always the right ones unless you challenge them right? :)

Tedious theatre and bad acting rolled in to one.
Sounds awsome.

Just let me clarify that not only humans have emotions,we have more complex emotions because our minds are far more advanced than other life forms.

But humans are not the only being capable of 'loving' even rather basic unintelligent animals share lifelong bonds and partnerships,nurture and care for each other,etc
Birds do this,and their intellect pales in comparisan to humans.
More complex feelings and emotions are shared by some of the more intelligent animals,especially mammals.The killer whale for example has been documented showing apparant acts of Love/kindness,Fear,Envy and probably most importantly...Mercy.

I one saw a documentary on killer whales where they were beaching themselves to catch seals.The mother teaching and nurturing her offspring all the time.Now what was most amasing to me was when the end of the hunting season came.
The last seal pup caught by the whales was very gently brought back to the shore,being held so gently in the whales mouth as to cause no damage.
The mother whale who was doing it brought the seal all the way onto the beach and quietly watched as it scampered back to it`s own mother,then she left for the ocean.

Now if that isn`t an example of non human compassion and mercy i don`t know what is.I`ve also seen other examples of whales exibiting amasingly intelligent behaviour.One such example was a female diver who was swimming with whales (though can`t remember which type,they were smallish in size)

The whales were calmly watching the humans as they filmed them in the water,then for some reason thinking she had nothing to fear the woman went up to a big male and started to stroke him.The whale didn`t seem to pleased with the lack of respect and proceeded to drag her underwater.By the womans account of the film evidence,she was near drowning,the whale suddenly powered her up to the surface right beside her boat.
As if to say imho "Stay where you belong" It was an amasing thing to watch.I`ve seen similar incidents of captive performing whales doing the same thing.If you were a 5 tonne killing machine i don`t think you`d be too pleased at some skinny humans riding about on your back either,Though in none of the incidents has the human been actually killed.Imo this demonstrates a knowledge and value of life,all of which are traits only humans were given (according to religion).

Many,many other animals display 'emotions' as emotions are simply a tool for better understanding and ability to comminicate.Also if you belive what the bible says about eing the only lifeform to posess an immortal soul,then you are fooling yourself.That was merely an attempt by the writers of the bible to make themselves feel more important then the other being on the planet.Not that anything posseses a soul,unless you consider conciousness to be a soul.But i`m sorry to tell you that when you die your conciousness dies too,unless there is some transfer of energy to enviroment that i`m unaware of.

The basic origin of religion was humans inability to understand,so they invented religion to make things easier to understand and explain.Now that we have more advanced culture and scientific knowledge.We can explain all these things said to have been the work of 'god'. Origin of species,tiny fragments of info on the earth and universe at large and so on.
People still belive in god,this baffles me as countless times,the infallible 'word' of god has proven wrong by scientific fact.To deny it is to admit your ignorance,unless of course you are incapable of understanding said things.
I for example cannot begin to understand the maths behind 'black-hole' calculations so i am naturally sceptical,but for all i know they could be right.

I`ve said it many times before and i`ll say it again,religion is a means of escape when people don`t want to face the truth.There are of course other reasons for someones religious beliefs,conditioning from childhood,etc.
Also let it be known that i can sympathize with people who are religious because of some loss,i myself would love it if there were a 'magical' place were i could see loved ones i have lost.But logic tends to dictates my brain about these things,not what i would most like to be true.
So,in conclusion.There is irrefutable evidence that animals posess the same kinds of emotions and drives that fuels us humans. Nature...something i tend to think of as a collective brain,not sure if that`s an accurate definition but it`s what i use.The balance that seems to have kept this planet going for eons,wether by luck/chance of by some sense of knowledge and purpose seems to drive a force to which we pale in comparison...

Is one of the 10 commandments "thou stalt not worhip false prophets" ? Well the people who wrote that were themselves worshipping a false prophet,one of their own creation no less.The true 'god' of this planet (if the term must be used) is nature.Now this isn`t just the force which grows plants and such,i use this term to describe the seemingly unparraleled mind/un-mind that made,and continues to make existence.

This is just my way of explaining as best i can the scientific origin of the Universe..it could be wrong,in fact it most probably is....But to me the evidence all points to this thoery.I just hope this was coherant enough to put my point across.

BTW L2 those were brilliant examples of human art which imo are caused by over specialisation in the brain.Amasing though they are,i belive that`s what they are.

Take some autistic(sp) children who have hardly any skills at social interraction and comminication but are incredible mathamatics skills,not they they are capable of working out the answer,they just know it.
S.Hawking was another example,a brilliant mathamatical mind but with a crippling physical defect.Another was J.Nash,etc

Just a thoery...


edit: Btw :lol Halo

For one claiming to be so educated, you have so many gross misconceptions on the Christian religion aesahaetr.

Asshat.

interesting about the whales. I never heard that before.
But that aside.
The thread isnt about compassion, or love, or even emotion. Its about Inspiration. Its about the Divine Spark and Creation.
To claim that the great works of Human art are the product of a deformity is a tragedy. Its an opinion that I dont even think you really believe.
Its like something ripped from 1984 or a Ayn Rand book. Turn strength into weakness, dehumanify humans. You cant explain what posseses people to create things of transcendent beauty, so you label it as mutant, as abnormal.
You need to step outside your self hate that you have been so firmly indoctrinized in. You have worth, your actions mean something, your life has value. Life matters.
And so does Truth, Beauty, Honor...

Zehn: Would you like to give me some examples of my 'gross misconseptions' ?

L2: i was responding to Daemankyl when i was referring to love,emotion,etc
I kinda got off the point alitt...ok alot


To claim that the great works of Human art are the product of a deformity is a tragedy. Its an opinion that I dont even think you really believe.

Maybe i didn`t explain myself properly.What i meant was that brilliance tends to have a consequence,a sort of way of the mind balancing itself out.
I wouldn`t refer to the art of the Sistine chapel as a product of deformity.I would refer to it as a work of genius.

As for Ayn Rand,i have no idea who that is.Also the concept of turning strength into weakness isn`t at all what i was saying.But to claim that genius is flawless is foolish,many accounts of genius were plagued with problems.Wether or not it is linked to their genius is debatable,but i would say it is.

Also i`m mistified by this statement;

dehumanify humans

Would you care to explain in greater detail ?

You cant explain what posseses people to create things of transcendent beauty, so you label it as mutant, as abnormal.

It`s quite simple really,genetics.Yes you`ll think otherwise,it`s a divine spark or whatever.But that`s what it comes down to,inherent talent.Also,yes it is abnormal.Do i think that is a bad thing ? No far from it,i thought you would`ve worked that out by now.Originality and individuality is what gives rise to change and progress,not always in a positive way,but i think it`s better than a race of drones.


You need to step outside your self hate that you have been so firmly indoctrinized in.

Please don`t try any more Freudian type analogys...

You have worth, your actions mean something, your life has value. Life matters.

Yes,but how much is debatable... ;)

$31|= . |-|@Ti/|/ thrown in there for ya ;)

heh try to see a different light of things.

You believe what animals share is love as a pure emotion which i doubt it is but the truth is i dont know. Do i think my dog loves me? Maybe, could it just be part of a dogs nature to act as though it loves me? Probably.

When you can tell me why there are so many lvls of love, and what love is, and why we have it for reasons of evolutionary progress ill start looking more into scientific creation.

Till then ill stick with there being some form of god or higher power being.


As far as whales its your interpretation that those are the emotions they are expressing considering no one here knows whale language and i highly doubt anyone will. Do i doubt thats what it is? No, could it be something else? Yes.


Is one of the 10 commandments "thou stalt not worhip false prophets" ? Well the people who wrote that were themselves worshipping a false prophet,one of their own creation no less.

hi anomoly(sp)

thats like saying time travel is possible. More in depth its exactly like the terminator movies.

John became the leader of the resistance because of the terminator coming to try to kill him, but the terminator only tried to kill because he was the leader of the free resistance.


So ya.

read "The Fountainhead" please..

Youd at least understand parts of my viewpoint a little better..

Plus its a good read.

You believe what animals share is love as a pure emotion which i doubt it is but the truth is i dont know. Do i think my dog loves me? Maybe, could it just be part of a dogs nature to act as though it loves me? Probably.

Ok,i`ll start by saying that dog`s as a whole arn`t highly intelligent and are in no way comparable to whales.Yes dogs have emotion,they share many traits of human emotion such as fear,happiness,anger,envy.But their emotions are much more basic than humans are,simply because our minds are far more evolved.Not because we were created by a god,but because the minds of humans are our foremost tool.Without them we would be helpless and would die off very fast.

Try to imagine a human body with the mind of a dogs ?
without the evolved intelligence to craft tools and such during stages of our evolution i highly doubt we would`ve survived to see today.
What was it that darwin said,Survival of the fittest ? Well without our evolved brain we wouldn`t have had what was needed to survive the ice-age.


As far as whales its your interpretation that those are the emotions they are expressing considering no one here knows whale language and i highly doubt anyone will. Do i doubt thats what it is? No, could it be something else? Yes.

Yes,i can see why you would think that.But i`m not referring to their language,which in undoubtedly complex.I was referring to their physical behaviour,if you had seen the films for yourself possibly you would think differently.

Changing peoples opinions is almost impossible,people will belive what they want and always find evidence to back it up.Though this is the area that religion is sorely lacking.So conveniently 'Evidence' has been replaced by 'Faith' where-as they don`t need any evidence as they have faith.What this is really saying is that they`ll belive what makes them happiest.
Which is prefectly fine by me,i know some great religious people.It`s all good until you get manic Zealots who will do anything for their religion...

No matter how much i could try and convince you of the existence of evolution and the intelligence of other mammals,i know that it will never really do any good.

The proof of it is still around today,animals are constantly evolving.Take the gliding lizards of that place that i can`t remember (sorry)

Found in one part they appear completly normal,on another part they appear to be evolving out of the use of their gliding wings due to much increased storm activity over time.Alot of time mind you.
There are many examples of evolution thoughout the world today.Try to observe with eyes unclouded,much like you yourself stated.

As for that,i do try and keep an open mind about things.I go on what the evidence points too,and the evidence all points to evolution as the origin of species.Not one of a number of gods.
Personally i`ve never read the Origin of species,but it`s on my 'To read list' If i had to name a scientist who most inspired me it would probably be darwin.

L2: Could you summarize the content of this book pls ?
I`ll most definatly consider reading it.Though if it`s freudian i think i`ll probably give it a miss.That guy was creepy... :D

The mother whale who was doing it brought the seal all the way onto the beach and quietly watched as it scampered back to it`s own mother,then she left for the ocean.

That's just a stupid fish (err, excuse me, whale thxBlowHole) in my book. Unless you think that particular orcinus orca was some kind of newfangled water-logged conservationist.

That was merely an attempt by the writers of the bible to make themselves feel more important then the other being on the planet.

You traveled back and asked them, I see.

i`m sorry to tell you that when you die your conciousness dies too

You've done this too, I assume.

unless there is some transfer of energy to enviroment that i`m unaware of.

That's one of my current theories. Thermodynamics, baby. However, just because it's my theory doesn't make it fact. Lesson you should look into, Mr. Time-travel / after-life vistior / animal psychic.

People still belive in god,this baffles me as countless times,the infallible 'word' of god has proven wrong by scientific fact.

Well, you don't strike me as the type that really needs much to "baffle", but that's for another time. I would like to see the examples that you have for this. I'm not saying they are not there, but I would like to see some for my own edification.

To deny it is to admit your ignorance,unless of course you are incapable of understanding said things.

LOL, you're a psychiatrist too! That's a lot of hats you wear there, Skippy. To say, absolutely, that there is no supreme being is supreme ignorance. (To say, absolutely, that there is, is also intellectual dishonesty - but that's a bludgeon I use for other discussions.)

I for example cannot begin to understand the maths behind 'black-hole' calculations so i am naturally sceptical

I bet you don't understand the "maths" behind cash-registers and bank-statements either...

but for all i know they could be right.

Wow! You made a big step there, Asshater! You know they could be right! Your uncertainty here is cute almost. Like a child learning to ride a bike. You finally got the idea. You don't know, and can admit it. Someone get this guy a shiny silver star for his forehead!

by some sense of knowledge and purpose seems to drive a force to which we pale in comparison...

Sounds like a belief in a higher power or being to me. Didn't you just assert that there WAS no such thing? "TEHER IS NO GOD, AND NO RELIGION IS RIGHT!~! IT IS JUST PROPAGANDA MIND CONTROEL!! (Gaia guide us on a path that is pure! *hugs tree*)"

Is one of the 10 commandments "thou stalt not worhip false prophets" ?

I give up, Professor Theology, can you give me this answer? Oh, wait, are you asking? I thought you knew all there is to know about the religion bidness.

The true 'god' of this planet (if the term must be used) is nature

(Gaia, show us your true power and love! *sacrifices block of tofu*)

i use this term to describe the seemingly unparraleled mind/un-mind that made,and continues to make existence.

While I can't say, with a certainty that you do, that this is incorrect, I'm going to speculate a bit here. That idea sounds more like some really bad North Florida Hydroponic Stink-weed manifesting itself in your text, but I won't be so brazen as to say it's impossible. (Put down the bong, try getting outside once in a while.)

Coup de gras time! (It's a game I like to play called "Compare the lines from the same person". Normally I have to collect them from multiple posts, but you were nice enough to put them all into one spot for me!)

This is just my way of explaining as best i can the scientific origin of the Universe..

The basic origin of religion was humans inability to understand,so they invented religion to make things easier to understand and explain.

Eeeeesh...

it could be wrong

The most astute thing you've ever said. THAT is what you need to say more, and quit with all your absolutes. It chafes the nuts.

Question Faust, do you assault agnosticism as hard as you go at absolutism?

Sorry i stopped reading at the point you called a whale a 'stupid fish' Ignorance knows no bounds.

A shark is a 'stupid fish'
Whales are most likely the 3rd most intelligent animals on the planet.

/yawn


Edit: Went back and read your post.Like a feared there was no actual point there,only flames.But...they were funny!
Mind you that`s all they were,but that`s what you probably intended them to be.If you want to seriously challange and debate my beliefs i suggest you put together a basis for your posts other than 'make as many wise cracks as possible'

Amusing it was,relevant it wasn`t.

If ignorance is being unaware or uninformed, what'd you call not finishing reading his post - replying to it and calling him ignorant?

Too tired for more pointless arguing.You americans are right,always are,always will be,etc,etc

When you stop with the self-important attitude,maybe i`ll give a shit what you say.

One person has already gained many respect points for certain posts.Still probably a self-obsessed bastard,but everyones gotta start somewhere.

L2: Could you summarize the content of this book pls ?
I`ll most definatly consider reading it.Though if it`s freudian i think i`ll probably give it a miss.That guy was creepy...


Bleh,, meant "Atlas Shrugged"

Anyway.. here..
The story takes place in a slightly modified United States. The country has a "head of state" rather than a president and a "National Legislature" instead of a Congress. The time is ostensibly the not-too-distant future in which American society is crumbling under the impact of the welfare state and creeping socialism (most other nations have already become Communist "People's States") . The story may be described as simultaneously anachronistic and timeless. The pattern of industrial organization appears to be that of the late 1800s, with large capital-intensive corporations being run and owned by individual entrepreneurs. The mood seems to be close to that of the depression-era 1930s. Both the social customs and level of technical knowledge remind one of the 1950s. The level of government interference and political corruption is similar to that of the 1970s.

The story is an apocalyptic vision of the last stages of a conflict between two classes of humanity-the "looters" and the "nonlooters." The looters are proponents of high taxation, big labor, government ownership, government spending, government planning, regulation, and redistribution. They include politicians and their supporters, intellectuals, religious leaders, government bureaucrats, scientists who sell their minds to the bureaucrats, and liberal businessmen who, afraid of honest competition, sell out their initiative, creative powers, and independence for the "security" of government regulation. The non-looters-the thinkers and doers-are the competent and daring individualists who innovate and create new enterprises. These prime movers love their work, are dedicated to achievement through their thought and effort, and abhor the forces of collectivism and mediocrity. The battle is thus between non-earners who deal by force and profit through political power and earners who deal by trade and profit through productive ability.
For twelve years you've been asking "Who is John Galt?" This is John Galt speaking. I'm the man who's taken away your victims and thus destroyed your world. You've heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis and that Man's sins are destroying the world. But your chief virtue has been sacrifice, and you've demanded more sacrifices at every disaster. You've sacrificed justice to mercy and happiness to duty. So why should you be afraid of the world around you?

Your world is only the product of your sacrifices. While you were dragging the men who made your happiness possible to your sacrificial altars, I beat you to it. I reached them first and told them about the game you were playing and where it would take them. I explained the consequences of your 'brother-love' morality, which they had been too innocently generous to understand. You won't find them now, when you need them more than ever.

We're on strike against your creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. If you want to know how I made them quit, I told them exactly what I'm telling you tonight. I taught them the morality of Reason -- that it was right to pursue one's own happiness as one's principal goal in life. I don't consider the pleasure of others my goal in life, nor do I consider my pleasure the goal of anyone else's life.

I am a trader. I earn what I get in trade for what I produce. I ask for nothing more or nothing less than what I earn. That is justice. I don't force anyone to trade with me; I only trade for mutual benefit. Force is the great evil that has no place in a rational world. One may never force another human to act against his/her judgment. If you deny a man's right to Reason, you must also deny your right to your own judgment. Yet you have allowed your world to be run by means of force, by men who claim that fear and joy are equal incentives, but that fear and force are more practical.

You've allowed such men to occupy positions of power in your world by preaching that all men are evil from the moment they're born. When men believe this, they see nothing wrong in acting in any way they please. The name of this absurdity is 'original sin'. That's inmpossible. That which is outside the possibility of choice is also outside the province of morality. To call sin that which is outside man's choice is a mockery of justice. To say that men are born with a free will but with a tendency toward evil is ridiculous. If the tendency is one of choice, it doesn't come at birth. If it is not a tendency of choice, then man's will is not free.

And then there's your 'brother-love' morality. Why is it moral to serve others, but not yourself? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but not by you? Why is it immoral to produce something of value and keep it for yourself, when it is moral for others who haven't earned it to accept it? If it's virtuous to give, isn't it then selfish to take?

Your acceptance of the code of selflessness has made you fear the man who has a dollar less than you because it makes you feel that that dollar is rightfully his. You hate the man with a dollar more than you because the dollar he's keeping is rightfully yours. Your code has made it impossible to know when to give and when to grab.

You know that you can't give away everything and starve yourself. You've forced yourselves to live with undeserved, irrational guilt. Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it's your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle. This country wasn't built by men who sought handouts. In its brilliant youth, this country showed the rest of the world what greatness was possible to Man and what happiness is possible on Earth.

Then it began apologizing for its greatness and began giving away its wealth, feeling guilty for having produced more than ikts neighbors. Twelve years ago, I saw what was wrong with the world and where the battle for Life had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality and that my acceptance of that morality was its only power. I was the first of the men who refused to give up the pursuit of his own happiness in order to serve others.

To those of you who retain some remnant of dignity and the will to live your lives for yourselves, you have the chance to make the same choice. Examine your values and understand that you must choose one side or the other. Any compromise between good and evil only hurts the good and helps the evil.

If you've understood what I've said, stop supporting your destroyers. Don't accept their philosophy. Your destroyers hold you by means of your endurance, your generosity, your innocence, and your love. Don't exhaust yourself to help build the kind of world that you see around you now. In the name of the best within you, don't sacrifice the world to those who will take away your happiness for it.

The world will change when you are ready to pronounce this oath:
I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man,
nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.

Geez.
First of all I'm a swede. Secondly I'm a major in international politics. Third, I'm a neo liberal.

I've carried the torch on many anti-american debates, but the difference between you and me is that I can handle just that... debating. You deal, as faust said, in absolutes. You state "this is how it is" and then you can't handle when someone presents an argument saying why he doesn't believe it's so.

Debating isn't sticking to your guns until someone dies. That's bickering.

Please note that I haven't even discussed whether or not I agree with your views. I have NEVER SAID YOU'RE WRONG. I have however pointed out the obvious hypocrisy you use by stating others are ignorant when you're not even interested in hearing what other intelligent (faust is one intelligent fucker) beings try to communicate.

Though this is the area that religion is sorely lacking.So conveniently 'Evidence' has been replaced by 'Faith'


ahhhh such a magical word faith is.


was waiting for you to get to that here is the reason why i believe there is a god.

Look at the emotion of love....what is it based on faith?


I find it ironic that so many people put down so much religiously but can still not question an existance of love.

Love is what i feel is a combination word, in other words if i were to love someone but they dont return said feelings what defines what i feel as love instead of infatuation. Now you look at love itself, im sure many of us have said we love someone else in a romantic sense more than once and how many times did that romantic sense of the word fail us. How do you know what the other person feels other than having the faith that it in fact love same as yourself. But at the time of saying it, we truly felt and had the FAITH that it existed as well as the reciever of said love felt a similar way. Religion and love are both in a similar sense of meaning in other words if you can believe in one you shouldnt question the other so much.


without faith people dont have much of an existance. It gives us hope, it gives us love, it inspires us, so much in life can be created through faith.


To denounce any possibility of a higher being or God is denying yourself all that faith is based on, and all that maybe based on faith.

again this is just what i feel things are in no way do i feel i could or am 100% right just what i have experienced in my own path through life.

One of my favorite quotes is from hellen keller i believe i could be wrong ..

"The saddest thing in life is a person that has sight but lacks vision."

Question Faust, do you assault agnosticism as hard as you go at absolutism?

That depends. If anyone were to tell me that "agnosticism" (depending on which of the 16-some types that have jumped out) is the only correct belief, I'd have a go at them. I wouldn't deem it "assault", but more of a belittling.

My agnosticism is based on the honest assessment that "I can not say for sure", in things of religion. That's what everyone tells me "Faith" is. Well, I haven't felt it, and most of what I believe is that which can be measured. This, of course, can be taken to an extreme...so there are some allowances made to prevent one from being a "I can only believe what I directly see" sphere of observation type trap. However, I do try to make sure that I am as honest on my assessment of what I believe as that which I don't believe. I also will not hate someone for believing someone different. Where I take exception to some stances are those that immediately brand someone as "dumb" for believing something different. I see this quite a bit, and enjoy beating people with the same "intellect" that makes them think they are so right, and anyone believing contrary is evidently stupid.

(Hope that was more answer than rambling.)

Sorry i stopped reading at the point you called a whale a 'stupid fish' Ignorance knows no bounds.

And you missed my silly correction the first time around(which wasn't edited in) to show that I'm aware that killer whales are not fish and even put the blowhole comment in there to hopefully illustrate that "fish" was a tongue-in-cheek type of comment. I'll be sure to draw you a map next time. (Take a left on "sarcasm street" and I'll be the third house on the right...)

Went back and read your post.Like a feared there was no actual point there,only flames.But...they were funny!

LOL, they were pointed. I noticed you don't care to refute any of the "flames" that were disguised cleverly as "counter-points". Maybe in all your superior intellect, you missed them. <font color = red>WOULD THIS HELP YOU SEE THEM NEXT TIME?</font>

If you want to seriously challange and debate my beliefs i suggest you put together a basis for your posts other than 'make as many wise cracks as possible'

Pick a topic, sister...

Amusing it was,relevant it wasn`t.

The wisecracks are there to entertain, the relevance is there to hold my ground. You're not the only one reading these, and sometimes pills are easier to swallow with a little gel coating.

it is much easier to read one of faust's posts, probably because of his "cute" rhetoric, or the fact he speaks his mind

or the fact that he doesn't put up any crazy conspiracy theory's or the evolution of one country being molded into another