Oh No! Not Again!

[fallingblood]

Maybe Showgirls is the reason he is making an even more controversial movie...to distract attention away from Showgirls.

By the way...Starshop Troopers sucked.

As did Robocop.

 

[fallingblood]

Since when were humans (men) tasteful? It may well be that the film lacks the reverence that some might expect but is reverence or acceptance as a man the aim?
Is it gratuitous? What would the film gain by this? I would expect a poor film by this maker but surely the inclusion of farting would only be for the purpose of showing that Jesus was a man like other men.

The film gains controversy, which gains it publicity. This man was struggling to get the movie off the ground, and now he seems to be getting some attention so he can go through with it. The publicity he's getting is nearly priceless.

 

[ChristineES]

Everyone passes gas, we just don't show tasteful movies that show it. The guy making the film is getting a ton of publicity, which is what he wanted. When people want a lot of attention, negative attention works for them, too.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Everyone passes gas, we just don't show tasteful movies that show it. The guy making the film is getting a ton of publicity, which is what he wanted. When people want a lot of attention, negative attention works for them, too.

Imagine what Gone with the Wind would have been like if Scarlett O'Hara just ripped one out right in the middle of the Atlanta is Burning scene?

 

[ChristineES]

Imagine what Gone with the Wind would have been like if Scarlett O'Hara just ripped one out right in the middle of the Atlanta is Burning scene?

Nowadays, we would laugh. But in 1939, a bunch of people would have been totally offended. The censors would have probably had the scene cut.

 

[TashaN]

I personally think that is just what skeptics do. They make claims upon claims and in the end, they don't make much sense. And usually, they aren't supported by what actual scholars think.

Like the Roman Guard idea. James Tabor does mention it. He relates that there were those in the first or second century that believed that to be true (for instance, we have Celsus who makes some sort of claim in that regards). But Tabor also doesn't state that it is a true story or that we should accept it as factual.

As a side note, many scholars actually accept that there is quite a bit of evidence (at least for that time) for Jesus.

Thanks for the info.

Why would it be an insult to Christianity if Jesus were the product of rape?

Do you disrepect children born of rape? Do you think they are somehow less than the proven son of a king?

i'm sorry if i have offended you, but i have nothing against those who were born of rape. It's just that it's an insult to the message itself if Jesus was born of a human father whether it was of rape or even of a legitimate relation because it would contradict with his miraculous birth without a father.

 

[averageJOE]

Assuming Jesus was real...there are 5 ways he could have been conceived:
1) product of a rape
2) product of adultery
3) legitimate son of Joseph
4) born from a virgin by god
5) born from a virgin by an alien abduction

Now, using logic and reason, which are the most realistic possibilities? Which can be dismissed?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Assuming Jesus was real...there are 5 ways he could have been conceived:
1) product of a rape
2) product of adultery
3) legitimate son of Joseph
4) born from a virgin by god
5) born from a virgin by an alien abduction

Now, using logic and reason, which are the most realistic possibilities? Which can be dismissed?

I think that Joseph and Mary like many betrothed couple got a little too frisky in the carpenters shop one day and Jesus was the surprise result. Hence Mary getting preggies before they were married. I watch Teen Mom so I know this could be the case.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It's just that it's an insult to the message itself if Jesus was born of a human father whether it was of rape or even of a legitimate relation because it would contradict with his miraculous birth without a father.

Well, then lots of Christians are insulting Christianity. Many Christians assume that Jesus was born of a human, rather than being the product of miraculous conception.

Many Christians also disbelieve the literal Garden of Eden story, the Flood Story, the Exodus Story, and even the Resurrection Story. Lots of Christians doubt that Jesus really did all the miracles as are described in the New Testament.

Religious thought evolves. As we learn more about the world, we adjust our interpretation of the scriptures to fit that.

History is always being reinterpreted. For myself, as a progressive thinker, I fully support the evolution of religious thought. I don't want to think about God in the same way as my grandfather did.

That's just my opinion and outlook, of course.

 

[fallingblood]

Why would it be an insult to Christianity if Jesus were the product of rape?

Do you disrepect children born of rape? Do you think they are somehow less than the proven son of a king?

The idea that Jesus was a product of rape was first created in order to be an insult. Celsus, where we first see such a mention (or possible mention), had no problem believing that someone could literally be the son of a god. Yet, he thought it was too good of a thing for someone like Jesus, a mere peasant. And it was this story that simply was meant to be insulting.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The idea that Jesus was a product of rape was first created in order to be an insult.

I don't doubt that. I was asking why TashaN would assume it to be an insult.

Some of my best friends are illegitimate children.

 

[crocusj]

Everyone passes gas, we just don't show tasteful movies that show it. The guy making the film is getting a ton of publicity, which is what he wanted. When people want a lot of attention, negative attention works for them, too.

No, they don't. Gods do not pass gas, humans pass gas. That is the difference between Scarlett O'Hara and Jesus. How, for instance, would you show that Jesus was a man? Why is sitting around with his mates eating, drinking wine and farting an unrealistic and insulting way of showing that Jesus was indeed a man? It may well be publicity seeking and promotion by this director but that in itself is not an argument against the artistic value of Jesus farting. It seems to me that any film attempting to portray a god as a man should have an obligatory farting scene to differentiate between the two.

 

[goatus17]

The film should be pulled.

yet another example of the shallow baseness our society revolves around.

rather ironic isn't it that they portray media whore Fox as the pure Mary - why not an unattractive woman?

wait, that wouldn't sell would it.

Satan works in many ways.

 

[crocusj]

The film should be pulled.

yet another example of the shallow baseness our society revolves around.

rather ironic isn't it that they portray media whore Fox as the pure Mary - why not an unattractive woman?

wait, that wouldn't sell would it.

Satan works in many ways.

If you had the power, would you pull the film?

 

[goatus17]

I'd have to see the film first , but yes, if it were overtly blashpemous then it would have to be pulled.

Jesus Christ should not be mocked simply to make a few bucks - and spreading the word of Satan seems to be the essence of this film (from what I have briefly read)

if the film is purer than I imagine, then I take my words back.

 

[crocusj]

I'd have to see the film first , but yes, if it were overtly blashpemous then it would have to be pulled.

Jesus Christ should not be mocked simply to make a few bucks - and spreading the word of Satan seems to be the essence of this film (from what I have briefly read)

if the film is purer than I imagine, then I take my words back.

Would you just advise people not to watch the film? Why pull it. Cannot Christians make a judgement for themselves whether or not it is blasphemous? Also, obviously, there is an awfully big freedom of expression elephant in this cutting room of yours, surely.

 

[crocusj]

The film gains controversy, which gains it publicity. This man was struggling to get the movie off the ground, and now he seems to be getting some attention so he can go through with it. The publicity he's getting is nearly priceless.

All this may be true but it is also true of all movies. And...Starship Troopers is mildly amusing and Robocop is, well - after all - Robocop!

 

[ChristineES]

No, they don't. Gods do not pass gas, humans pass gas. That is the difference between Scarlett O'Hara and Jesus. How, for instance, would you show that Jesus was a man? Why is sitting around with his mates eating, drinking wine and farting an unrealistic and insulting way of showing that Jesus was indeed a man? It may well be publicity seeking and promotion by this director but that in itself is not an argument against the artistic value of Jesus farting. It seems to me that any film attempting to portray a god as a man should have an obligatory farting scene to differentiate between the two.

Actually, most Christians believe that although He was God, that Jesus was 100% human before the resurrection. I don't think it insulting, but I do think it bad taste to show people passing gas in movies-- unless they are some kind of slapstick comedy- that's my opinion of it.