Misconceptions of Christianity 2

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…well okay. I will take the position that religous beliefs fuel, and are firmly based on/in, emotion. Take emotion out of the religious equation and you’re left with very little. I’m not saying that’s the case with you, but look at pentacostals and evangelists; they can only thrive because it relies on emotion for impact. Emotion is a vital component of the religious experience…
[/quote]

I understand what you are getting at, if you are talking about those Christian denominations that are of those names. Yes, that makes sense where you would get that idea. However, that is not my religion and I am not sure how you would go ahead an make an apologetic argument for it since I do not believe that is the correct way to do things.

However, when I say we have ways of discerning, I mean we actually have set practices for discernment. Check out: http://www.ccr.org.au/discern.html - based on S. Ignatius’ Discernment.[/quote]

…this jumped out: “When someone comes to experience the reality of the spiritual world and discovers that God is a personal being who is vitally interested in every aspect of their life, (…)” The rest reads like a manual for selfhypnosis setting-up conditions that’ll lead to preset experiences, very nifty…

…however, a personal being? Oddly enough, i’ve never seen god refered to being personal like this before, altough it should’ve been obvious to me that god would be perceived as such. It makes it even harder to fathom how one can believe the creator of everything and anything is a personal being. Anyway that’s neither here nor there…

…question: does everything i say, or any link that i post, just reinforce what you already believe? Because, somehow, nothing that’s said by the believers in the various threads made me reconsider my position, eventhough i learned a lot from you [plural]…
[/quote]

The discernment stuff was interesting - I had never read that before. However, I agree with ephrem. It’s really just a variation of self-hypnosis or meditation techniques. And at the risk of offending you, Chris, while I was reading that stuff the whole Star Wars saga came to mind - use the Force, Luke, don’t give in to hate. Interesting, nonetheless.[/quote]

Interesting enough, Star Wars has direct roots in a great heresy. Manicheanism. [/quote]

I did not know it was related to a specific religion. I had read that it had Christian undertones given that Annakin Skywalker’s conception was somewhat of a mystery - not necessarily a virgin birth but apparently his conception was asexual.

This is why I find these threads interesting. It would be interesting to hear everyone’s views on the Dan Brown books.[/quote]

Hopefully we can all agree that Dan Brown books are really bad (succesful so hats off to him there) but really badly written.

182

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…well okay. I will take the position that religous beliefs fuel, and are firmly based on/in, emotion. Take emotion out of the religious equation and you’re left with very little. I’m not saying that’s the case with you, but look at pentacostals and evangelists; they can only thrive because it relies on emotion for impact. Emotion is a vital component of the religious experience…
[/quote]

I understand what you are getting at, if you are talking about those Christian denominations that are of those names. Yes, that makes sense where you would get that idea. However, that is not my religion and I am not sure how you would go ahead an make an apologetic argument for it since I do not believe that is the correct way to do things.

However, when I say we have ways of discerning, I mean we actually have set practices for discernment. Check out: http://www.ccr.org.au/discern.html - based on S. Ignatius’ Discernment.[/quote]

…this jumped out: “When someone comes to experience the reality of the spiritual world and discovers that God is a personal being who is vitally interested in every aspect of their life, (…)” The rest reads like a manual for selfhypnosis setting-up conditions that’ll lead to preset experiences, very nifty…

…however, a personal being? Oddly enough, i’ve never seen god refered to being personal like this before, altough it should’ve been obvious to me that god would be perceived as such. It makes it even harder to fathom how one can believe the creator of everything and anything is a personal being. Anyway that’s neither here nor there…

…question: does everything i say, or any link that i post, just reinforce what you already believe? Because, somehow, nothing that’s said by the believers in the various threads made me reconsider my position, eventhough i learned a lot from you [plural]…
[/quote]

The discernment stuff was interesting - I had never read that before. However, I agree with ephrem. It’s really just a variation of self-hypnosis or meditation techniques. And at the risk of offending you, Chris, while I was reading that stuff the whole Star Wars saga came to mind - use the Force, Luke, don’t give in to hate. Interesting, nonetheless.[/quote]

Interesting enough, Star Wars has direct roots in a great heresy. Manicheanism. [/quote]

I did not know it was related to a specific religion. I had read that it had Christian undertones given that Annakin Skywalker’s conception was somewhat of a mystery - not necessarily a virgin birth but apparently his conception was asexual.

This is why I find these threads interesting. It would be interesting to hear everyone’s views on the Dan Brown books.[/quote]

What do you want know about them? He melds fiction that he claims as fact, butchers actual facts, and fiction to create them.

Although I must admit my favorite thing that came of Dan Brown’s book was all the people who were in an uproar over the Gospel of Thomas. The desire to include it in the gospels is really funny. Especially since any person that I have ever run into who wanted it included always responded with a “no” when I asked had they ever read the gospel of Thomas.

When I follow up with why do you want the gospel included? they gave the reason from the book\movie it sets the record straight about women in the Bible.

Funny thing is the gospel of Thomas says the only way marry can get saved is if she becomes a man.

“Simon Peter said to them: Let Mariham go out from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Look, I will lead her that I may make her male, in order that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven”.

[/quote]

I have read the Gospel of Thomas and I liked the way it was written as a sayings gospel. Reads more like the Lao Tzu or Tao Tse Tsing

183

[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …speaking of dead men; if you have the chance to rent and watch “Dead Man” by Jim Jarmusch, with Johnny Depp, let me know your thoughts, i think you’ll enjoy it immensely: Dead Man (1995) - IMDb
[/quote]This is an absolutely honest question. What was the reason you wanted me to see this movie which I have now seen?

184

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …speaking of dead men; if you have the chance to rent and watch “Dead Man” by Jim Jarmusch, with Johnny Depp, let me know your thoughts, i think you’ll enjoy it immensely: Dead Man (1995) - IMDb
[/quote]This is an absolutely honest question. What was the reason you wanted me to see this movie which I have now seen?[/quote]

…you saw it? That’s great! When i saw the movie in '95 it made a profound impact on me. At the time i was still entrenched in the search for truth and enlightenment, and “Dead Man” offered an important piece of the puzzle…

…you tell me i’m a dead man until god brings me to life. You say this based on your own filters that color your perspective. Your experiences led you to believe something, and from this you’ve derived a worldview that encompasses each and everyone. The message of “Dead Man” agrees in part with you, beit that a man is spiritually dead as long as good and evil fight eachother within him…

…the William Blake character was chased by the bountyhunter [evil] and guided by Nobody [good] but it wasn’t until both killed eachother he was set free. This is what i “believe”: when you’ve attained a state of being where the struggle within, between good and evil, is nulled you’re free…

…this struggle is something we all experience, but perhaps a few become aware of it. The way to end the struggle isn’t limited to one specific thing; there are many ways to skin a cat and all roads lead to Rome. What is important that one reaches the point where he’s set free. How he achieves this is not. I realise that in your beliefsystem this simply is not an option, and i’m not writing this to convince you of something you don’t believe in…

…i only wish to create understanding between people, because if anything is lacking in this world today, it’s people understanding eachother. Only when there’s understanding there can be acceptance, and only when there’s acceptance there can be peace. Have a good day…

186

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…well okay. I will take the position that religous beliefs fuel, and are firmly based on/in, emotion. Take emotion out of the religious equation and you’re left with very little. I’m not saying that’s the case with you, but look at pentacostals and evangelists; they can only thrive because it relies on emotion for impact. Emotion is a vital component of the religious experience…
[/quote]

I understand what you are getting at, if you are talking about those Christian denominations that are of those names. Yes, that makes sense where you would get that idea. However, that is not my religion and I am not sure how you would go ahead an make an apologetic argument for it since I do not believe that is the correct way to do things.

However, when I say we have ways of discerning, I mean we actually have set practices for discernment. Check out: http://www.ccr.org.au/discern.html - based on S. Ignatius’ Discernment.[/quote]

…this jumped out: “When someone comes to experience the reality of the spiritual world and discovers that God is a personal being who is vitally interested in every aspect of their life, (…)” The rest reads like a manual for selfhypnosis setting-up conditions that’ll lead to preset experiences, very nifty…

…however, a personal being? Oddly enough, i’ve never seen god refered to being personal like this before, altough it should’ve been obvious to me that god would be perceived as such. It makes it even harder to fathom how one can believe the creator of everything and anything is a personal being. Anyway that’s neither here nor there…

…question: does everything i say, or any link that i post, just reinforce what you already believe? Because, somehow, nothing that’s said by the believers in the various threads made me reconsider my position, eventhough i learned a lot from you [plural]…
[/quote]

The discernment stuff was interesting - I had never read that before. However, I agree with ephrem. It’s really just a variation of self-hypnosis or meditation techniques. And at the risk of offending you, Chris, while I was reading that stuff the whole Star Wars saga came to mind - use the Force, Luke, don’t give in to hate. Interesting, nonetheless.[/quote]

Interesting enough, Star Wars has direct roots in a great heresy. Manicheanism. [/quote]

I did not know it was related to a specific religion. I had read that it had Christian undertones given that Annakin Skywalker’s conception was somewhat of a mystery - not necessarily a virgin birth but apparently his conception was asexual.

This is why I find these threads interesting. It would be interesting to hear everyone’s views on the Dan Brown books.[/quote]

Hopefully we can all agree that Dan Brown books are really bad (succesful so hats off to him there) but really badly written.[/quote]

From the excerpts I’ve seen, his writing is embarrassingly bad; moreover, what he’s trying to say is so absolutely trite, it’s painful to read. It says a lot about our culture that he’ so successful.

187

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …speaking of dead men; if you have the chance to rent and watch “Dead Man” by Jim Jarmusch, with Johnny Depp, let me know your thoughts, i think you’ll enjoy it immensely: Dead Man (1995) - IMDb
[/quote]This is an absolutely honest question. What was the reason you wanted me to see this movie which I have now seen?[/quote]

…you saw it? That’s great! When i saw the movie in '95 it made a profound impact on me. At the time i was still entrenched in the search for truth and enlightenment, and “Dead Man” offered an important piece of the puzzle…

…you tell me i’m a dead man until god brings me to life. You say this based on your own filters that color your perspective. Your experiences led you to believe something, and from this you’ve derived a worldview that encompasses each and everyone. The message of “Dead Man” agrees in part with you, beit that a man is spiritually dead as long as good and evil fight eachother within him…

…the William Blake character was chased by the bountyhunter [evil] and guided by Nobody [good] but it wasn’t until both killed eachother he was set free. This is what i “believe”: when you’ve attained a state of being where the struggle within, between good and evil, is nulled you’re free…

…this struggle is something we all experience, but perhaps a few become aware of it. The way to end the struggle isn’t limited to one specific thing; there are many ways to skin a cat and all roads lead to Rome. What is important that one reaches the point where he’s set free. How he achieves this is not. I realise that in your beliefsystem this simply is not an option, and i’m not writing this to convince you of something you don’t believe in…

…i only wish to create understanding between people, because if anything is lacking in this world today, it’s people understanding each other. Only when there’s understanding there can be acceptance, and only when there’s acceptance there can be peace. Have a good day…[/quote]I feel genuinely bad because it appears you recommended this film in good faith. I was hoping beforehand it was maybe a trick to get me to see a buncha skin or something.

You are starving my friend. I give you my word I am not saying this to be denigrating because we are on opposite sides of a debate, but I was bored stiff. If this moldy morsel of clumsily attempted human profundity left a good taste in your mouth, I would give quite a bit to be there if you are ever introduced to the living water and bread of life.

188

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…well okay. I will take the position that religous beliefs fuel, and are firmly based on/in, emotion. Take emotion out of the religious equation and you’re left with very little. I’m not saying that’s the case with you, but look at pentacostals and evangelists; they can only thrive because it relies on emotion for impact. Emotion is a vital component of the religious experience…
[/quote]

I understand what you are getting at, if you are talking about those Christian denominations that are of those names. Yes, that makes sense where you would get that idea. However, that is not my religion and I am not sure how you would go ahead an make an apologetic argument for it since I do not believe that is the correct way to do things.

However, when I say we have ways of discerning, I mean we actually have set practices for discernment. Check out: http://www.ccr.org.au/discern.html - based on S. Ignatius’ Discernment.[/quote]

…this jumped out: “When someone comes to experience the reality of the spiritual world and discovers that God is a personal being who is vitally interested in every aspect of their life, (…)” The rest reads like a manual for selfhypnosis setting-up conditions that’ll lead to preset experiences, very nifty…

…however, a personal being? Oddly enough, i’ve never seen god refered to being personal like this before, altough it should’ve been obvious to me that god would be perceived as such. It makes it even harder to fathom how one can believe the creator of everything and anything is a personal being. Anyway that’s neither here nor there…

…question: does everything i say, or any link that i post, just reinforce what you already believe? Because, somehow, nothing that’s said by the believers in the various threads made me reconsider my position, eventhough i learned a lot from you [plural]…
[/quote]

The discernment stuff was interesting - I had never read that before. However, I agree with ephrem. It’s really just a variation of self-hypnosis or meditation techniques. And at the risk of offending you, Chris, while I was reading that stuff the whole Star Wars saga came to mind - use the Force, Luke, don’t give in to hate. Interesting, nonetheless.[/quote]

Interesting enough, Star Wars has direct roots in a great heresy. Manicheanism. [/quote]

I did not know it was related to a specific religion. I had read that it had Christian undertones given that Annakin Skywalker’s conception was somewhat of a mystery - not necessarily a virgin birth but apparently his conception was asexual.

This is why I find these threads interesting. It would be interesting to hear everyone’s views on the Dan Brown books.[/quote]

What do you want know about them? He melds fiction that he claims as fact, butchers actual facts, and fiction to create them.

Although I must admit my favorite thing that came of Dan Brown’s book was all the people who were in an uproar over the Gospel of Thomas. The desire to include it in the gospels is really funny. Especially since any person that I have ever run into who wanted it included always responded with a “no” when I asked had they ever read the gospel of Thomas.

When I follow up with why do you want the gospel included? they gave the reason from the book\movie it sets the record straight about women in the Bible.

Funny thing is the gospel of Thomas says the only way marry can get saved is if she becomes a man.

“Simon Peter said to them: Let Mariham go out from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Look, I will lead her that I may make her male, in order that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven”.

[/quote]

I have read the Gospel of Thomas and I liked the way it was written as a sayings gospel. Reads more like the Lao Tzu or Tao Tse Tsing[/quote]

It is an interesting read, but for that matter alot of the gnostic gospels are interesting reads.

I assume you got my point about it though so I don’t have much else to add.

189

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

I have read the Gospel of Thomas and I liked the way it was written as a sayings gospel. Reads more like the Lao Tzu or Tao Tse Tsing
[/quote]

I find it interesting that you would read that…What was the appeal?

190

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

I feel genuinely bad because it appears you recommended this film in good faith. I was hoping beforehand it was maybe a trick to get me to see a buncha skin or something.

You are starving my friend. I give you my word I am not saying this to be denigrating because we are on opposite sides of a debate, but I was bored stiff. If this moldy morsel of clumsily attempted human profundity left a good taste in your mouth, I would give quite a bit to be there if you are ever introduced to the living water and bread of life.
[/quote]

…there’s no argueing about taste Tiribulus…

191

Brother Chris,

Thanks for that discernment article; I’ve been meaning to pick up Ignatius’ Spiritual Exercises - this contains his “rules for discernment,” doesn’t it?

I liked this: [quote] In Palestine, the shepherd would walk ahead of the sheep. Even if the sheep mixed with other sheep at a waterhole, the shepherd could separate his own sheep by just calling them. They knew his voice and would follow him. A tourist in Palestine once asked a shepherd whether the sheep would ever follow anyone else. The shepherd replied, â??Yes, when they are sick they will follow anyone.â?? Once, the tourist saw a man driving a herd of sheep. When he asked about it, he was told that the man was not the shepherd, but the butcher. [/quote]

LOL…^ exactly.

I’ve thought about discernment and “voices” a great deal: what it is, how to discern true from false voices, as well as how to describe all this. So I thought I’d share my thoughts and experiences. Obviously, I am trying to use various metaphors below to describe what is not ultimately describable.

To me, the “voice” isn’t a “voice” in any sense of how I would normally understand what is meant by the word. The “voice” feels rather like a presence. It’s as if someone has entered the room; my back is turned - and the room has changed, but I can’t say why or how it has changed.

But it’s more than that: somehow, my understanding is broadened and deepened; and yet, there is no accounting for why it has altered.

Moreover, how I saw things before now seems strangely deficient, even shallow and irrelevant. There is no going back; this subtle shift is felt as irrevocable.

Furthermore, this presence is like a kind of light - and it’s a light that not only means, it also reveals.

And finally - I’m not quite sure how to put this - it’s a light by which I come to see and feel; and see and feel more intensely; which in turn feels like I’m more alive, more aware, et cetera. (Which reminds me of a C.S. Lewis quote: “I believe in Christianity as I believe in the rising sun; not because I see it, but by it I can see all else.”)

Now, along with that presence - or, better, inextricably linked with that presence; or still better, perhaps it is the presence itself - is what I can only describe as a “word.”

This^ is the hardest to decribe. By “word” I don’t mean a “message” - as in a linear, single, directive/command/message.

Rather, by “word” I mean a kind of multivalent meaning in which whole worlds are contained. It’s a kind of invisible stamp that now shapes how I understand things, how I see things. I often think about it as a Chinese character - which contains many meanings and elements; or a complex medieval tapestry. Or a kind of picture that extends beyond its edges; and conveys a meaning that has no end. But I am also sure that it is a “word” and a “language.” Nevertheless, it is a reality that’s come to live within me.

It reminds me of the many dreams I’ve had where I am suddenly aware of an strange and unearthly language - which I somehow understand. And not only do I understand it, but I’ve always understood it. And this language makes human language look utterly banal and ephemeral and superficial - in what it can explain or describe or mean.

2 relevant journal entries…both from my long “Atheist/Agnostic” phase; the first was recounting a part of a dream; the second I was completely awake.

And…

Sorry for the long post! LOL!

192

[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …there’s no argueing about taste Tiribulus…
[/quote]To be fair I’m not the right guy to have an opinion on that kind of movie. I don’t do too well with flix that try to be very much more than the passing of a couple hours because in the end that’s what they all are anyway. The very last place on earth I would go looking for something meaningful is ANY movie. Even ones alleging high moral lessons I might even formally agree with. To me that’s not what movies are for.
If I’m gonna take the time to watch a movie, which isn’t all that often, I don’t want one that expects me to take it seriously or tries too hard to teach me anything.

This one played like the chapters in a sorta new age, sorta hindu guru, sorta American Indian medicine man, anything but the gospel explanation of life booklet. Honestly, I found Religulous easier to watch from an entertainment standpoint, which I also finally got to.

I say I feel bad, because I think you meant this as a kinda handshake as it were and I feel like I’m scowling at you with my hands planted in my pockets and I don’t mean it like that at all.

193

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

I feel genuinely bad because it appears you recommended this film in good faith. I was hoping beforehand it was maybe a trick to get me to see a buncha skin or something.

You are starving my friend. I give you my word I am not saying this to be denigrating because we are on opposite sides of a debate, but I was bored stiff. If this moldy morsel of clumsily attempted human profundity left a good taste in your mouth, I would give quite a bit to be there if you are ever introduced to the living water and bread of life.
[/quote]

…there’s no argueing about taste Tiribulus…
[/quote]

Yeah there is! My taste is better than yours. :slight_smile:

194

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…well okay. I will take the position that religous beliefs fuel, and are firmly based on/in, emotion. Take emotion out of the religious equation and you’re left with very little. I’m not saying that’s the case with you, but look at pentacostals and evangelists; they can only thrive because it relies on emotion for impact. Emotion is a vital component of the religious experience…
[/quote]

I understand what you are getting at, if you are talking about those Christian denominations that are of those names. Yes, that makes sense where you would get that idea. However, that is not my religion and I am not sure how you would go ahead an make an apologetic argument for it since I do not believe that is the correct way to do things.

However, when I say we have ways of discerning, I mean we actually have set practices for discernment. Check out: http://www.ccr.org.au/discern.html - based on S. Ignatius’ Discernment.[/quote]

…this jumped out: “When someone comes to experience the reality of the spiritual world and discovers that God is a personal being who is vitally interested in every aspect of their life, (…)” The rest reads like a manual for selfhypnosis setting-up conditions that’ll lead to preset experiences, very nifty…

…however, a personal being? Oddly enough, i’ve never seen god refered to being personal like this before, altough it should’ve been obvious to me that god would be perceived as such. It makes it even harder to fathom how one can believe the creator of everything and anything is a personal being. Anyway that’s neither here nor there…

…question: does everything i say, or any link that i post, just reinforce what you already believe? Because, somehow, nothing that’s said by the believers in the various threads made me reconsider my position, eventhough i learned a lot from you [plural]…
[/quote]

The discernment stuff was interesting - I had never read that before. However, I agree with ephrem. It’s really just a variation of self-hypnosis or meditation techniques. And at the risk of offending you, Chris, while I was reading that stuff the whole Star Wars saga came to mind - use the Force, Luke, don’t give in to hate. Interesting, nonetheless.[/quote]

Interesting enough, Star Wars has direct roots in a great heresy. Manicheanism. [/quote]

I did not know it was related to a specific religion. I had read that it had Christian undertones given that Annakin Skywalker’s conception was somewhat of a mystery - not necessarily a virgin birth but apparently his conception was asexual.

This is why I find these threads interesting. It would be interesting to hear everyone’s views on the Dan Brown books.[/quote]

Hopefully we can all agree that Dan Brown books are really bad (succesful so hats off to him there) but really badly written.[/quote]

From the excerpts I’ve seen, his writing is embarrassingly bad; moreover, what he’s trying to say is so absolutely trite, it’s painful to read. It says a lot about our culture that he’ so successful.

[/quote]

I read The Divinci Code because a friend recommended it, I was amazed at how bad it was given how succesful it was. The ‘what did you think’ conversation with the friend was tough.

195

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

I have read the Gospel of Thomas and I liked the way it was written as a sayings gospel. Reads more like the Lao Tzu or Tao Tse Tsing
[/quote]

I find it interesting that you would read that…What was the appeal?[/quote]

I read a lot of religious texts from all sorts of different religions. I find them very interesting. I am particularly interested in the evolution of religions over time.

196

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…there’s no argueing about taste Tiribulus…
[/quote]

Yeah there is! My taste is better than yours. :)[/quote]

…oh i’m sorry, i wasn’t aware that you even had taste pat. My bad!

197

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …there’s no argueing about taste Tiribulus…
[/quote]To be fair I’m not the right guy to have an opinion on that kind of movie. I don’t do too well with flix that try to be very much more than the passing of a couple hours because in the end that’s what they all are anyway. The very last place on earth I would go looking for something meaningful is ANY movie. Even ones alleging high moral lessons I might even formally agree with. To me that’s not what movies are for.
If I’m gonna take the time to watch a movie, which isn’t all that often, I don’t want one that expects me to take it seriously or tries too hard to teach me anything.

This one played like the chapters in a sorta new age, sorta hindu guru, sorta American Indian medicine man, anything but the gospel explanation of life booklet. Honestly, I found Religulous easier to watch from an entertainment standpoint, which I also finally got to.

I say I feel bad, because I think you meant this as a kinda handshake as it were and I feel like I’m scowling at you with my hands planted in my pockets and I don’t mean it like that at all.
[/quote]

…movies, books and music are all conduits for creativity, wisdom and truths. A movie like “Dead Man” is steeped in symbolism and allegory and tells a story that’s as old as mankind in a captivating, original and beautiful way. But to each his own…

198

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…there’s no argueing about taste Tiribulus…
[/quote]

Yeah there is! My taste is better than yours. :)[/quote]

…oh i’m sorry, i wasn’t aware that you even had taste pat. My bad!
[/quote]

The only thing I want to taste right now is a nice cold Beer. I am going to Germany in a few weeks, and this is one of the things I hope to accomplish.

199

[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …movies, books and music are all conduits for creativity, wisdom and truths. A movie like “Dead Man” is steeped in symbolism and allegory and tells a story that’s as old as mankind in a captivating, original and beautiful way. But to each his own…[/quote]
Not surprisingly I would say movies and music are almost universally conduits for just about anything other than wisdom or truth though creativity I’ll concede. Oh, I got the symbolism and allegory and it certainly does tell a story as old as mankind. Guess which one I’m gonna say =]

I found this particular expression of the same story clumsy and contrived. We spend 2 hours being treated to the ultimate amorality of everything (in a nutshell) which then culminates in good and evil, neither of which is fully one or the other, killing each other off as the subject floats off into a sea that goes apparently nowhere (dies). Moral of the story? Nothing really means anything which somehow is clearly expected to be received with great meaning. Different vehicle, same story with a certain level of the above conceded creativity.

200

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…there’s no argueing about taste Tiribulus…
[/quote]

Yeah there is! My taste is better than yours. :)[/quote]

…oh i’m sorry, i wasn’t aware that you even had taste pat. My bad!
[/quote]

The only thing I want to taste right now is a nice cold Beer. I am going to Germany in a few weeks, and this is one of the things I hope to accomplish.[/quote]

…since there are so many to choose from, i don’t think that’s going to be much of a problem D!