out of pocket

not at home

away

Ouch.... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I still am wondering how much it cleaned up at the Box Office this weekend?

Ohhh...I thought that meant "broke"...lol

Oh yeah, it made a lot of money at the box office but since it got a rating of 48% less than MI3, which was not that good, I do not think it can be that good. I suspect that DVC will be more like the last sets of Stars Wars movies: very popular but not very good (or not good at all).

I have no problem with A N Y T H I N G people have to say about the book..

but mortarman, saying yep I read it..thought it was as a piece of fiction...does not warrant attack and unreasonable leaps of (ILL-logical conclusions......

save the crusade of it being personal against the CREATORS not the viewers!!
save the crusade of it being against the people HERE ...

that's what gets me....

and here's my biggest point...mortarman..I read your whole post..

didn't see one personal attack
didn't see once you calling out a specific poster and challenging them on some personal level....

saw someone make a great case of what potential damage in your opinion book/movie can create...

and not a word about the evilness of WAT...
go figure...

this is hollywood schlock...it would hold the attention no longer than a week or two...and then poof be gone...

ARK^^

When Disney came out with Pocahontas a while back one of the "actors" (who provided the voice for one of the animated characters) was excoriated for being part of a movie that was not historically accurate.

His response? For Pete's sake, it had a talking raccoon in it, so WHAT if it wasn't historically accurate!

It's fiction. Mindless entertainment. Nothing more.

I think Shrek was historically accurate ... I mean ... the persecution of ogres ... was just plain wrong!

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

MM,

Lest my post to you be misconstrued given the recent history of this thread, I come in peace, as you know I have the utmost respect for you. I am challenging the intellectual/rational basis of some of your claims above, not attacking you personally.

Of course not. Scripture is reasonable. God actually wants us to ask these questions!!


Great question!

The issue is this...

Let me take us back to the Garden and the Fall. Was any of us there? Nope. do we have actual pictures, video, etc of the events in the Garden as it happened? Nope. Do we have archeological data showing the site where the Garden was? Nope. So, how do we know???

Well, the first authority for which I speak is Scripture itself. The last I heard, historians had proven events back to just after the Great Flood. Which means everything after that point has pretty much either been proven to have happened, or still stands as no evidence either way.

What I am saying without going down into the weeds here is that I have a remarkably accurate historical document here. And if it is accurate, let's say...for over 60% of the book...can I then assume that the other 40% might also too be accurate? Can I also say that if over 60% might be literal (except where it does say it is not being literal...such as parables), can I also assume that the other 40% would also be equally accurate and literal?

We have no other document of ancient history with this sort of accuracy. Accuracy in the events...and accuracy in the copying of the document down thru the years. It stands far above anything else out there.

The second reason I accept the Bible in its entirety is its prophetic accuracy. Every prophecy that was to come true before now...did. And exactly the way described. There is a study out there that did the mathmatical probability of Jesus meeting all of the prophecies written centuries before He came. It is the same probability of me standing blindfolded in the middle of Texas, with one foot of stacked silver dollars throughout Texas...and two of them painted red...and me picking randomly and finding one of the red ones.

I will post more later, as I have to go fight traffic.

In His arms.

I hope you win!

Pep

The Bible is a book of novels, written by men with their own perception and agenda's, and further limited by the religious politics of the time.

While I am sure there is some truth and lots of beauty, nobody knows in how many ways and how often Jesus was misquoted.

God doesn't have words, and yet Jesus so close to him could speak to him and bring the messages to us. That was Jesus's purpose, to bridge the gap between our limited understanding and God. Remember symbols (describing symbols) is twice removed from the truth. And this is the limitation of the written/spoken word, even if it could be written with total unbias and projection.

We will all get to heaven, but not one will get there until we all do, and this is the message of Jesus. We will all go together or no one will go... and his message of no one will get there except through him was meant for that group of people, in that time, based on their understanding and current state of evolvement.

Jesus is but one path to God, and this as a Christian is my belief...

There, I said it finally.

And to whomever asked this question, I have read the Bible from cover to cover, and many, many other books on Christianity, religion and spirituality.

It's almost all I read, and why I probably haven't read novel in question.

"Mr Pep is out of pocket and I watch movies ..... what else is there to do???

*pout*"

Write a novel? Crossword puzzels? Sudoku? Build a birdhouse? Construct a dye laser?

Clean house?


Me -> anything but watch TV.

The topic of people believing in fiction movies makes me think of that poor confused Japanese woman a few years ago who died in Minnesota while trying to find the money from the movie Fargo. She actually made a map based on the clues from the film.

Mimi, what about you is not conservative?

Heavens, NBII, I think there are many better communicators! I thank you, though, for the compliment.


Defining compassion as desiring fulfillment, peace, and love for each person, I would say no. There is no time when that desire should waver.

There are plenty of times when it -does-, of course. But time when you -should- set compassion aside? I can't think of one.

So I would not "fight" for what I believe in.

You know me and the strong stands I've taken, though, so you know that's not all of my answer.

When I see something troubling, something that appears to be harmful or without compassion, then I'm surely going to speak up about it, and usually with as much persuasive power as I can. When I do so, I try to remember compassion's dearest companion -- ethics. If I desire for good to come to everyone, then I must make my case in a way that harms none, and that limits or prevents harm that others may do, if I can.

Putting a positive spin on it, the greater good -- benefit to all -- is the goal.

So let's take a very simple, profound, and visceral situation. I walk into my living room and find DD and the little neighbor boy doing their level best to choke each other to death. Clearly, I need to act decisively in order to end the harm that they're doing to each other, and to themselves. (Physical harm as well as underlying harm to their integrity and, if you will, souls.)

It is certainly possible that in the course of separating them, I may suffer a few scrapes or bruises. It's also possible that one of the kids might tumble backwards and get a bump on the head.

It may very well, in other words, LOOK like a fight. However, its core is still action in the name of ending or minimizing harm.

I can also envision a proactive, and violent, action that is taken with a desire for the happiness and wellbeing of all involved, one that would limit or end harm, and thus be compassionate and ethical. Policemen do it all the time.

I do have trouble with application of the same ideas when lethal force is involved. It is the ultimate harm, the one thing that truly cannot be undone by any mortal human. After we're dead, there is no further good that can come to us in this life and we have been deprived of any further good that we could do, as well.

There are many who would argue that even in that case, there are times when causing the death of another human being is justified. The current war in Iraq was justified that way, as has been every war in my lifetime. I don't know whether that justifies the wars or not, though. The case in Iraq, now that we look back on it, appears to be very, very weak. I don't like the idea that I might be a member of an unethically aggressive nation in that case. But it might be true.

The ultimate philosophical debate of this kind of thing, of course, is the genocides and holocausts, the destructions of many hundreds of thousands and millions of people. Those appear to be unstoppable except by the use of overwhelming counter-attacks and destruction.

I don't know the answer to that one. I do know that I would want decisions made about all of those things to be made in compassion, in contemplation and prayer, and with the gravest and most dedicated reflection on the harm that is being done, or being contemplated.

I'm not sure that I answered your question, NBII. And there is something else to be said, here. The Dalai Lama, in the book called "The Wisdom of Forgiveness," said that he was capable of murder. He didn't say it was right, just that he was capable of it. He was describing a story he was told about a young boy who was brutally beaten with a lead pipe, and then left, and then eventually murdered by the Chinese because his father had convicted of being a Tibetan nationalist. The Dalai Lama said that if he had had a gun, he might have killed the men who did it.

When he was questioned about it, the Dalai Lama went on to explain that although he believes that murder is the ultimate wrong, there are times when the body reacts instinctively. I think he said something like, "Sometimes the fingers act more quickly than the mind."

I think it's worth understanding that we are all capable of such terrible things. The Dalai Lama, on most days, works to be compassionate and not kill mosquitoes. (He claims to have a hard time with it. Me? I swat the durn things left and right.) And in the moment when he heard the dreadful story of a terrible murder of an innocent, he was capable of murder.

I learned that I'm capable of premeditated murder one very bad day at the DMV. (I am so glad that I didn't have a weapon!) I learned that I am capable of emotional abuse one very bad day here in my own home. (I wish that I had not had the weapon of my voice.)

I cannot think, in all the situations that you and I will face in our lives, of a time when compassionate action would be a worse choice than some other choice.

That doesn't always make it slow, of course. I suspect I'd be acting to separate DD and her friend in about one tenth of a second. Perhaps before I was even consciously aware of what I was doing. However, it is my fervent hope that I will continue to learn to act with greater compassion and care throughout the rest of my life. (Note to God, I'm not asking for any more really big lessons on this one, though. Really, I'm having a hard enough time forgiving the instruments of my LAST round of big lessons on compassion!)

WOW!

Had your EX tried to take your daughter away from you, would you fight?

After becoming pregnant, had your EX decided to have an abortion, would you fight?

Pep,

Even though it says it is fiction, this book does cause people wo wonder on the veracity of the Bible. I have no problem with that, as I know the Bible can stand on its own.

But as I said, to change the truth about Jesus...when He is what He is to me...well, it's personal.

Everyone has their right to make their own decision about the movie, about Jesus, etc. My response here is my personal feelings on how we are treating Him.

In His arms.

Sure. Except there are parts of hinduism that has been proven untrue. Thus, with those errors, I can assume there might be more.

No such errors have been found in Scripture.

In His arms.

Dont know where you are getting your data. I would be interested in reading about these "significant" copies. Last I have researched, that isnt true. But I am alsways open to learning the truth.


HHHmmmm. I think historians would differ with you on that statement.


I will check them out. But as I have said, the research has shown that the manuscripts that we have found statistically have little variance. And none of the variances changes the basic text (Such as if I wrote that I was wearing a blue tunic when I went to visit Jesus, and then someone wrote that I wore a white one).

In His arms.

Susan you asked:



Oh my goodness, Susan... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />

We were having enough trouble with RELIGION..now POLITICS...? No way....

I am not conservative politically but I do have conservative values..OK?

The Lizard Man stuff fits quite nicely with my point of view, KWIM?

ARK:

I got what you said about MM's approach as compared to Forever's....

Thanks.