OT: Saw The Passion (thread caution!)

[Zephyr]

Some of my family and friends already watched the movie and they said it really touched them. It just amazes me how Jesus Christ would sacrifice Himself even if you are the only person that exist in this world. Wow, talk about sacrificial love. Well, love afterall is a sacrifice. At any rate, I'm going to watch The Passion this coming Saturday.

 

[Likebright]

Peter,
Thanks. Good point of view.
I haven't seen it yet, but will.
Mike

 

[notos&w]

much more than a famous execution, those 12 hours (and the few years of His ministry leading up to them) changed the entire world forever. no other has made the same claims or done the same works - there has been no similar man.
through His blood and by His stripes we are saved. Jesus Christ is a personal saviour - as Zephyr said, He chose to die on that cross for my debt which apart from His blood i could never repay. He is the only man who has chosen to die and He did it for me (others have chosen when or how they die but not if). He did it for you too if you will call upon His name.
if you are unfamilar with the gospels, read them today (the movie is covered in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). Tomorrow is not certain. judgment is. are you certain about your fate?

i haven't seen the movie but i sure hope Christ's love is apparent. Love was the reason for His coming. If you have questions, please feel free to PM me. My Father's business is my primary role in life.

 

[raggie33]

ill wait to it is out on dvd.but it seems to be something i realy want to see.just dont like going to the theature

 

[Empedocles]

Some quotations from above:

"...And of course, some people will choose to not buy our products because I have personal beliefs and I am prone to "force" them on people. But hey, life is short. "

"If people are offended by you saying that you watched a movie, and encouraged other people to see it, too... let them be offended. The Gospel is an offense by its very nature; talking about it is bound to be, too. "




Okay... do you folks remember in the old show "Green Acres" when Oliver would get into one of his sermonettes, and they would begin to play the national anthem in the background? I always thought those scenes were funny. Anyway, cue the music.

First, I'll try to be succinct.

Second, not everyone will agree with me.

Third, if you, dear reader, are one of those people who have a hard time handling the sincerely held, strongly worded, and respectfully tendered convictions from someone who has a different view than your own, then I beg you to skip this post. Please.

Fourth, this post will NOT be about "religion."

Enough of the preface. I commend Peter for seeing the film, and for bringing it up here, trusting the CPF community to be mature enough to handle the fact that he is a person with convictions beyond the manufactuing of excellent lights. However, and this is absolutely not your fault, Peter, I cringe and weep inside at the way we have to be so very delicate and tenuous when we address the subject of our most deeply held beliefs.

If there is any word in America these days that's pure magic, it's the word "offended." What a wonderful way to shut down and shout out those with whom I'm too lazy to dialog. "I'm so offended that you would bring up something like that here! It confirms everything I've ever suspected about your being so narrow-minded and intolerant. Why should I bother to strain myself to respectfully wrap my mind around the values that are important to you-- you obviously don't have the same convictions I do, and are therefore certainly a bigot with a capitol B. No wonder my AAA-premium still has a little blue tint to it!"

Forgive me friends (for I get the feeling that many of you would be wonderful friends if I could but meet you in person), but I thought that one of the greatest strengths of the American Experiment is that we had a diversity of opinion in this country. (Apologies to my non-US readers.) But I feel that I am seeing the strength of our diversity being turned into a paralyzing agent. I'm not a skinhead, but I will defend my neighbor's right to be one, no matter how wrong I'm convinced he is. I may even be offended by his bigotry, but I refuse to give in to the current culteral fad and bully him by trumping up a load of phony indignation to shut him out of my life. Which is EXACTLY what I see going on all around me when religion or civics are mentioned. This is a tragedy. These are important issues.

I'm glad that Peter has some deep convictions. I would be heartbroken if he didn't. I lament, however, that he feels like he has to justify his decision to raise the issue. I know that there are some real instances of "offense" in our society. That's natural. What really bothers me is how very quickly people are to take offense, and how phony this "offense" often turns out to be. It's as if this "offense" is 1) a tool to release us from having to take someone else seriously, and 2) a stick to beat someone with if I want to marginalize him/her. It's a crass attempt to silence the type of discussion that makes America great. This is arrogant intolerance, and it's most often perpetrated by those who claim to praise tolerance the most.

I guess what I'm trying to say, in my pathetic fashion, is: why are we so incredibly threatened by the fact that not everyone sees things the same way? Here's a small example of what I'm referring to. I know a man who had a young admin assisstant. He committted the outrage of telling this woman that God loved her in a deeply personal way. At the time, she was quite moved by what he'd said, having seldom heard anything like that. Later, however, after discussing her employer's comments with some members of her family, she discovered that she was, in fact, "offended." She subsequently quit rudely and without notice, and accused the man of attempting to "proselytize" her. (I know this fellow. Trust me, he treated this woman with profound respect and regard, and was merely expressing to her a truth that he felt would give her comfort.) Not satisfied with these actions, she falsely accused him of sending her pornographic material via the internet and threatened to tell his wife and employer about the porn. (He'd done no such thing.) Gee, I guess she was really offended.

What we have in our society, unfortunately, is a new kind of discrimination: a discrimination of thought. Our elites shut down those with whom they disagree (usually some sort of a traditionalist) and slober all over themselves to praise those who corrupt and coursen our culture. Do you oppose abortion? You must be a woman hater. Do you object to the re-definition of marriage? You are a bigoted homophobe. Do you love Jesus? You must be an intolerant, fundamentalist religious fascist. Do you want to see the Gibson movie? You must be a Jew hater? Do you think that OJ Simpson is a vicious murder? You must hate people of color. Do you feel that Clinton was actually a mediocre president, despite his creditable intellect and impressive political skills? You are obviously a right-wing nut-job. You see? It's a fun game the whole family can play. I'm offended, you're offended. Wouldn't you like to be offended too?

Is this forum the best place to have this sort of a dialog (assuming that rational dialog about these things is even possible anymore)? Maybe. Maybe not. But it's an Arc forum, and Peter is the King here. I've not seen the movie, but I think that it's an important film, just as "Schindler's List" was an important film. If anyone is offended that Peter was personally moved by the movie, and chose to share it here (whether they'll voice their indignation here or not), then they have my pity.

Please forgive the long post. I obviously don't have any strong feelings on the subject. I'll skulk away now.

Fade the music.

 

[LitFuse]

Good for you Peter. As you said, life is short. You shouldn't go through it squelching your personal beliefs because you're concerned that it may adversely impact your business. It's pointless to try to make everyone happy, you're much better off trying to be true to yourself and your beliefs. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I don't think this belongs in the Arc forum though, and the longer it stays here, the more it will look like favoritism from the mods. If ever a thread belonged in the Cafe, this is it.

Peter

 

[LitFuse]

Excellent post Empedocles! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif

Peter

 

[Luciferase]

[ QUOTE ]
SureFireRocks said:
Funny how we have never seen any organism evolve during our time period. Natural selection and the survival of the fittest is one thing, but evolution is another.


[/ QUOTE ]

Here ya go...

http://www.calacademy.org/science_now/archive/headline_science/sockeye_salmon_112700.htm

 

[Radagast]

I personally don't care to see it. I was curious until I found out it was just about the death. I would have been more interested in seeing his life and teachings. In our culture of violence and death it would be more beneficial to see how Jesus lived and what he had to say. Only then can you really understand what his death meant. I grew up Catholic and have watched the institution crumble throughout my life. I don't really trust institutions or any sort of "group" with my spiritual best interest anymore. I don't believe a lot of stuff anymore and I don'r care to debate because ultimately no body really knows for sure. We're all doing our best to understand our place on this little rock in space. Mel Gibson made a movie, and to be successful it sounds like he cut out the boring stuff and went to the stuff we really love- violence and blood. Then again, being the conservative corporate cheerleader he is, he was sticking to the things that promote his personal political agenda and leaving out the three years on Jesus' ministry which was far as to the left as one could possibly get. The one 4 letter word you don't hear out of many zealous christians these days is L-O-V-E.

Mr. Mayo and Peter: How about a Arc/Mayo collaboration? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif

 

[richpalm]

Empedocles! Very, very well put! I'm going to save this whole thread. Check this: http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/columns/passion.htm

Rich

 

[Rothrandir]

jesus was hardly on the "left"

on gibsons interview with dian sawyer, he was asked why he chose to only depict the death of christ.
he said that the life of christ has been done many, many times, and tht the death of christ has never been portrayed accuratly.

and when it all comes down to it, dying and being resurected is the main point of the story...it's what he came here to do.

 

[srue]

Peter, it seems the flames you feared never materialized, and I congratulate the forum for that.

But let me be the first (I think) to say that I would have preferred for this thread to have been started in The Café. I know I was not forced to click on or read this thread, but reason The Café exists is for posts exactly like this. The Arc forum is for discussions relating to Arc Flashlights. I enjoy the camaraderie of the forum members, and I am not suggesting we confine all posts strictly to flashlights, but in the future I would prefer if threads like this were started in The Café.

Thanks for letting me voice my opinion.

Stuart

 

[chamenos]

lets refrain from turning this into a creation vs evolution debate/flame-fest, ok? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[bwcaw]

Empidociles: Excellent post! Very well written. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif

 

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
SureFireRocks said:
Funny how we have never seen any organism evolve during our time period. Natural selection and the survival of the fittest is one thing, but evolution is another.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're getting WAY off-topic here. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I'm not sure what the point you're making here is. I don't see evolution as mutually exclusive with with a Creator. In fact, it seems fitting that divinely-created beings would change over time as their environment changed. As for the fact that we haven't seen evolution in our time, that is not exactly true. For an example, see the story of the peppered moth [1].

However, you are somewhat correct, in that evolution in our time is extremely rare. There is good reason for this - the evidence seems to show that almost ALL evolution happens extremely rapidly during times of extreme environmental pressure. It's not a slow, gradual process, it happens over a generation or two as it did with the peppered moth when an external change renders the species' old characteristics disadvantageous all of a sudden. In that case, the species must adapt (and quickly) or face extinction (the most common outcome of such scenarios).

[1] http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/peppered.htm

 

[Rothrandir]

there is a difference between microevolution and macroevolution.

while i'm not a scholar on the subject, i think it's fairly well documented that subtle changes can occur within species over time, to help them function in a specific enviroment.

 

[chamenos]

***deleted***

edit: staying out of this one...

 

[Bill.H]

Everything I thought I wanted to say after I read the first post has already been said, so a hearty "me too" to:

Peter, for actually starting this whole thing and not being afraid to. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif

Empedocles: Well said! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif

Tom, welcome aboard! Warning- it will get expensive /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Radagasts, great suggestion, let's hope Tom and Peter read it and think about it.

 

[BuddTX]

Don't tell me how it ends, I haven't seen the movie yet! <grin!>

 

[NewBie]

Sub-species is quite different from evolution, imho.

"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct, or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved." —*L. H. Matthews, Introduction, Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, (1971 edition).

The peppered moth example is not evolution as I see it, it is natural selection.

The peppered moth was the first documented example of Darwin's natural selection at work. There were two different color varieties of the same moth: a peppered variety and a dark black variety. The peppered variety was camouflaged on the bark of trees, but the black variety was conspicuous. As a result, the birds ate a lot of black moths. The most common variety, therefore, was the peppered variety. But then the bark of the trees turned dark or black because of pollution.

Now the dark form was hidden, but the peppered variety stood out, so the birds ate up the peppered variety. The proportion of peppered moths to black moths shifted in response to the change in the environment.

So here was a change of frequency. At one time we had more peppered moths, and now we have more dark ones. A clear example of natural selection taking place. But the question is, Is this really evolution? I don't think so. It just shows variety within a form. This does not tell me anything as a biologist and a geneticist about how we have come to have horses and wasps and woodpeckers.

If you take two of these dark moths, their offspring is not dark, but it is both peppered and dark.

Now for example, Darwin's Galapagos finches off the coast of Ecuador. Isn't that an evidence of evolution? Here is another area where we need to be careful. Speciation is indeed a real process, but speciation only means that two populations of a particular species can no longer interbreed. The two populations get separated by a geographical barrier such as a mountain range, and after a time they are no longer able to interbreed or to reproduce between themselves.
But all we have really done is split up the gene pool into two different, separate populations; if you want to call them different sub-species, that's fine. But even Darwin's finches, although there are some changes in the shape and size of the bill, are *very* clearly related to one another. Drosophila fruit flies on the Hawaiian Islands_there are over 300 species_probably originated from one initial species. But they look very much the same. The primary way
to distinguish them is by their mating behavior.

Among the creatures Darwin observed on the Galápagos islands were a group of land birds, the finches. In this single group, we can see wide variation in appearance and in life-style. Darwin provided what I believe to be an essentially correct interpretation of how the finches came to be the way they are. A few individuals were probably blown to the islands from the South American mainland, and today’s finches are descendants of those pioneers. However, while Darwin saw the finches as an example of evolution, we can now recognize them merely as the result of recombination within a single created kind. The pioneer finches brought with them enough genetic variability to be sorted out into the varieties we see today.

There is a lot of variety within the organisms, and species can adapt to small changes in the environment. But there is a limit to how far that change can go. And the examples we have, like peppered moths and Darwin's finches, show that very clearly.

But in the case of the moths, they are both sub-species of the same peppered moth, and both sub-species existed before 1800, and today both sub-species still exist. Changes within species does not constitute evolution, and in regard to peppered moths, no change within species has occurred, much less across species.

For your fish example you pulled out. It sounds like they don't interbred due to habits/typical sizes. But, if you put both fish in an environment where they are forced to be together, can they have offspring????

Your example reminds me of two classes of society. One group hangs out in bars and breeds that way. Another group hangs out in libraries and breeds. Just because the two groups don't associate, frequent the same places, and probably look quite different, does that mean a woman from a bar and a man from a library can't breed???