New film mocks Christianity

[darkamulets]

Originally posted by: djheater
This preoccupation with religion in the media and entertainment is becoming more irritating every month.

It's like Hollywood never realized there were different religions before... ugh....

my thoughts exactly

 

[Xede]

Originally posted by: Fausto
Eh...I suppose, but that wasn't even the point. My point is that "Xtreme Christians" like the OP and others invite mockery through their actions which may or may not be the point of the film in question. Since none of us have seen it, this is all essentially moot.

Maybe I missed it, but I really don't see what's so "extreme" about anything JupiterJones has said. Playing with rattlesnakes? Rejecting medicine in favor of prayer? Those I'd call extreme.

 

[EpsiIon]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: JupiterJones

That is far from a stereotype; it's the Official Word of both groups. Baptists and Catholics don't want you having sex unless it's for procreation so they've latched onto this study (which you still haven't produced) since it appears to support their position.

Here is an example of willful ignorance. Baptist do not believe that sex is only for procreation. For a more detailed explanation see Intended for Pleasure: Sex Technique and Sexual Fulfillment in Christian Marriage.

You might be getting your theology from Monty Python.

Is there a companion book called Intended for Hellfire and Eternal Damnation: Sex Technique for Godless Unmarried Sinners Who Will Burn for All Eternity?

Dude! You were just proven wrong and you come back with this mindless drivel? This isn't an adequate response to his point. In fact, all you've shown is that you know how to call names when you've been proven wrong. If you'll forgive me for saying so, you are willfully ignorant about Christians and what they believe. I'm honestly, truly sorry if the only Christians you've ever met have led you to believe the things you do about them.


BTW, the point of this thread, if I interpret it correctly, wasn't to get the movie banned or try to revoke somebody's freedom of speech. It was to point out the blatant hypocrisy of the "politically correct" agenda. If they truly had a problem with attacks on people's faith, they would protest this movie. Why don't they? It seems like they're saying, "We can't mock minorities, but majorities are OK." Why is OK to mock some people and not others?? This is an enormous double standard. Either we mock everybody or we mock nobody. If we truly want equality, we have to act like it.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: EpsiIon

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: JupiterJones

That is far from a stereotype; it's the Official Word of both groups. Baptists and Catholics don't want you having sex unless it's for procreation so they've latched onto this study (which you still haven't produced) since it appears to support their position.

Here is an example of willful ignorance. Baptist do not believe that sex is only for procreation. For a more detailed explanation see Intended for Pleasure: Sex Technique and Sexual Fulfillment in Christian Marriage.

You might be getting your theology from Monty Python.

Is there a companion book called Intended for Hellfire and Eternal Damnation: Sex Technique for Godless Unmarried Sinners Who Will Burn for All Eternity?

Dude! You were just proven wrong and you come back with this mindless drivel? This isn't an adequate response to his point. In fact, all you've shown is that you know how to call names when you've been proven wrong. If you'll forgive me for saying so, you are willfully ignorant about Christians and what they believe. I'm honestly, truly sorry if the only Christians you've ever met have led you to believe the things you do about them.

*sigh* Premarital sex = bad. Marital sex = good (if you're a Baptist), bad (if you're a Catholic and not trying to make a baby). I'll admit I was wrong about the "marital sex is naughty" thing WRT Baptists, but that doesn't change my original assertion.

BTW, the point of this thread, if I interpret it correctly, wasn't to get the movie banned or try to revoke somebody's freedom of speech. It was to point out the blatant hypocrisy of the "politically correct" agenda. If they truly had a problem with attacks on people's faith, they would protest this movie. Why don't they? It seems like they're saying, "We can't mock minorities, but majorities are OK." Why is OK to mock some people and not others?? This is an enormous double standard. Either we mock everybody or we mock nobody. If we truly want equality, we have to act like it.

Same goes for some Christians; endless yelling about how they're being singled out, yet they single others out all the goddamn time....and it pisses people off.....and they make movies which might offend Christians (Dogma, for example) pointing out the hypocrisy....and the Christians cry about being singled out...and the cycle is complete. :roll:

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: JupiterJones
Fausto,
I believe this is the study in question.
Jup

ABC Study: The Role of Behavioral Change in HIV/AIDS Epidemics in Developing Countries

Country/Countries:
Kenya, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Cameroon, Thailand

Principal Investigator:
Edward Green, Senior Research Scientist

Department:
Department of Population and International Health

Sponsor(s):
USAID, Population Services International

Dates of Research:
July 01, 2002 - August 31, 2003

Other Harvard Researchers Involved:
Vinand M. Nantulya, Yaa P.A. Oppong

Description:
A research project based at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies in Cambridge to identify and analyze the impact of the three primary behavioral changes, ABSTINENCE/delay of sexual debut, BEING FAITHFUL/partner reduction, and CONDOM USE, on HIV prevalence in six countries. The study's activities and results are expected to affect USAID's strategies and priorities in AIDS prevention, which in turn could influence the activities of UNAIDS and other donors in global HIV/AIDS research and prevention.

This study isn't even done yet.

Uganda has recently experienced dramatic declines in HIV prevalence. Analysis of HIV prevalence and behavioral data from Uganda suggest that reductions in casual sex as well as delay of sexual debut among youth (and periodic abstinence among older Ugandans) may have been the significant determinants of decline in HIV prevalence. Similar evidence can be found in Zambia and Senegal. USAID has awarded a research grant to the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, with separate components for the MEASURE/Evaluation project and the U.S. Census Bureau. Population Services International will assist Harvard's research. The research conducted under this grant will examine the impact of three behavioral changes (partner reduction, delay/abstinence, and condom use) on HIV prevalence rates in six countries. The Center's work on this grant involves a review of all relevant published and unpublished studies in six countries: Uganda, Kenya, Cameroon, Zambia, Zimbabwe (with Botswana as alternate), and Thailand. Part of the effort is to identify areas of needed research (gap analysis). The study's results should have a significant impact on USAID's funding priorities in AIDS prevention, which in turn could influence the activities of UNAIDS and other donors in global HIV/AIDS research and prevention.

 

[xeno2060]

LMAO...The one who is posting against the hypocrisy of christianity. Their handle is Fausto:laugh:

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: xeno2060
LMAO...The one who is posting against the hypocrisy of christianity. Their handle is Fausto:laugh:

I think you're confusing Fausto with Faust or Faustus. No relation.

 

[EpsiIon]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: EpsiIon

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: JupiterJones

That is far from a stereotype; it's the Official Word of both groups. Baptists and Catholics don't want you having sex unless it's for procreation so they've latched onto this study (which you still haven't produced) since it appears to support their position.

Here is an example of willful ignorance. Baptist do not believe that sex is only for procreation. For a more detailed explanation see Intended for Pleasure: Sex Technique and Sexual Fulfillment in Christian Marriage.

You might be getting your theology from Monty Python.

Is there a companion book called Intended for Hellfire and Eternal Damnation: Sex Technique for Godless Unmarried Sinners Who Will Burn for All Eternity?

Dude! You were just proven wrong and you come back with this mindless drivel? This isn't an adequate response to his point. In fact, all you've shown is that you know how to call names when you've been proven wrong. If you'll forgive me for saying so, you are willfully ignorant about Christians and what they believe. I'm honestly, truly sorry if the only Christians you've ever met have led you to believe the things you do about them.

*sigh* Premarital sex = bad. Marital sex = good (if you're a Baptist), bad (if you're a Catholic and not trying to make a baby). I'll admit I was wrong about the "marital sex is naughty" thing WRT Baptists, but that doesn't change my original assertion.

BTW, the point of this thread, if I interpret it correctly, wasn't to get the movie banned or try to revoke somebody's freedom of speech. It was to point out the blatant hypocrisy of the "politically correct" agenda. If they truly had a problem with attacks on people's faith, they would protest this movie. Why don't they? It seems like they're saying, "We can't mock minorities, but majorities are OK." Why is OK to mock some people and not others?? This is an enormous double standard. Either we mock everybody or we mock nobody. If we truly want equality, we have to act like it.

Same goes for some Christians; endless yelling about how they're being singled out, yet they single others out all the goddamn time....and it pisses people off.....and they make movies which might offend Christians (Dogma, for example) pointing out the hypocrisy....and the Christians cry about being singled out...and the cycle is complete. :roll:

Well, I disagree with your first point (WRT Catholics), but we don't have get into that...

On your second point, I agree! The cycle is self-reinforcing. I personally believe that things like "hate speech" are often blown way out of proportion and what people really need to do is get on with their lives. I merely wanted to point out that condoning something like this movie simply continues the cycle! In my opinion, people need to figure out where they stand on the "mocking faiths" issue and take a consistent stand. Personally, I don't think it should happen, but I can't condone a law against it...

This could very well be wrong, but the way it seems to me is that Christians (as a whole) wouldn't be so touchy about the issue if everybody else wasn't so touchy about it. I think a lot of Christians become indignant (which is a bad thing, BTW) when attacks on their beliefs are accepted and even encouraged while attacks on other beliefs are denounced and condemned.

I also want to thank you for an intelligent reply to my post. All too often, people simply yell or harp on some technicality instead of responding to my point.

 

[gopunk]

i'd just like to take the time to stress that if you're going to mention a report, study, etc... it is extremely bad form not to cite the paper where you are getting your information. the group that did the study was posted, so now i can get to:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hcpds/publications.html

but where to go from there? there's hundreds of papers... i'm sorry, but it is useless to state facts if others can't easily verify them.

and this isn't just pertaining to this thread, i really wish people in other threads would properly cite more.

 

[JupiterJones]

Originally posted by: gopunk
i'd just like to take the time to stress that if you're going to mention a report, study, etc... it is extremely bad form not to cite the paper where you are getting your information. the group that did the study was posted, so now i can get to:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hcpds/publications.html

but where to go from there? there's hundreds of papers... i'm sorry, but it is useless to state facts if others can't easily verify them.

and this isn't just pertaining to this thread, i really wish people in other threads would properly cite more.

gopunk,
You are correct. Had this report been the main point of the thread then I would (probably) have done a better job. This report was brought up on the context of:

Fausto: Southern Baptist deserve what they get because all they do is come up with outrageous crap ever year.

Jup: Really? Look at what they said in 2003 and show me outrageous crap.

Fausto: Here, they actually believe that Uganda's success against AIDS is due to Abstinance.

Jup: Well, here's a catholic article saying the same thing and they reference a Havard Study. Seems like it isn't outrageous, and maybe not crap.

Fausto Yes it is outrageous crap because the CDC website doesn't say it isn't. And besides, all you guys care about is stopping people from having sex. (and now I will send Jup some private message vulgarity).

 

[JupiterJones]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: JupiterJones
Hey Fausto,

I appreciate the vulgarity via private message and then you refusing to hear my response. What are you, 13 years old?

Hey, you're the "adult" who's made a career of trolling ATOT. :roll:

Your definition of a troll is anyone who disagrees with you. While my views are certainly outside the mainstream, it would only be trolling if I espoused some view that I did not actually hold for the sole purpose of attracting predictable responses. Just because your bleating tripe is predictable doesn't make me a troll.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: JupiterJones

Originally posted by: gopunk
i'd just like to take the time to stress that if you're going to mention a report, study, etc... it is extremely bad form not to cite the paper where you are getting your information. the group that did the study was posted, so now i can get to:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hcpds/publications.html

but where to go from there? there's hundreds of papers... i'm sorry, but it is useless to state facts if others can't easily verify them.

and this isn't just pertaining to this thread, i really wish people in other threads would properly cite more.

gopunk,
You are correct. Had this report been the main point of the thread then I would (probably) have done a better job. This report was brought up on the context of:

Fausto: Southern Baptist deserve what they get because all they do is come up with outrageous crap ever year.

Jup: Really? Look at what they said in 2003 and show me outrageous crap.

Fausto: Here, they actually believe that Uganda's success against AIDS is due to Abstinance.

Jup: Well, here's a catholic article saying the same thing and they reference a Havard Study. Seems like it isn't outrageous, and maybe not crap.

Fausto Yes it is outrageous crap because the CDC website doesn't say it isn't. And besides, all you guys care about is stopping people from having sex. (and now I will send Jup some private message vulgarity).

Hey. Dumbass. The Harvard Study isn't even a study. It's a recommendation for a study which has not been completed yet. It's the only reference you could cite and it's not a reference.

Besides, the whole point of the thread (which got lost in the nitpicking) is that there must be some reaons certain Christian sects annoy people so much. Why don't you turn your introspective Baptist flashlight on that for a minute?

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: JupiterJones

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: JupiterJones
Hey Fausto,

I appreciate the vulgarity via private message and then you refusing to hear my response. What are you, 13 years old?

Hey, you're the "adult" who's made a career of trolling ATOT. :roll:

Your definition of a troll is anyone who disagrees with you. While my views are certainly outside the mainstream, it would only be trolling if I espoused some view that I did not actually hold for the sole purpose of attracting predictable responses. Just because your bleating tripe is predictable doesn't make me a troll.

Okay fine, you're just a fundie whacko. Whatever.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: JupiterJones

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: JupiterJones
Hey Fausto,

I appreciate the vulgarity via private message and then you refusing to hear my response. What are you, 13 years old?

Hey, you're the "adult" who's made a career of trolling ATOT. :roll:

Your definition of a troll is anyone who disagrees with you. While my views are certainly outside the mainstream, it would only be trolling if I espoused some view that I did not actually hold for the sole purpose of attracting predictable responses. Just because your bleating tripe is predictable doesn't make me a troll.

Okay fine, you're just a fundie whacko. Whatever.

Isn't Fundie Whacko redundant?

 

[EvilYoda]

When I originally heard of the movie, I was curious because of Mandy Moore...isn't she a fairly strict Christian? Not like Jessica Simpson strict, but still.

I'll support it, just because it pokes fun at Christianity.

 

[clamum]

Originally posted by: amcdonaldWhy else would ANYONE see a movie with Mandy Moore and the home alone kid???

I guess me cause I wanna see Mandy Moore and laugh at Christianity.

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: notfred
People get mocked because they do things that make other people say "What the hell were they thinking?" If you're going to do stuff that makes other people think you're an idiot, you're going to get mocked. Face it, that's just the way the world works.

So would it be alright to make a movie that rips on gays? I think not.

Honestly, Im a (somewhat) Christian, and this movie doesn't bother me. I just won't see it, no big deal. But at the same point I can see why people would be upset about this movie. Basically it comes down to whether or not the majority of a population should be allowed a kick in the nuts every once in awhile, or if they should be just as 'protected' as everyone else.

Take Affirmative Action for example. We all know, at the heart of it, AA is wrong. But at the same point, whites are a majority, and they probably could handle that kick in the nuts alot better than blacks. Does that mean its right, and should be accepted?



*Shrugs*

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: dolph
i have no idea what the difference is between a presbypitarian and a unitarian,

There's a bloody big difference there! Unitarian Universalists believe that everyone, regardless of religion, will be saved. Presbyterians are the modern form of Calvinists who believe that only a certain select group that is pre-defined will be saved.

ZV

 

[PunDogg]

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

A noted movie critic says the new film "Saved!" is a sad, bigoted, anti-Christian movie that mocks the Christian faith.

...and what's wrong with that? Freedom of speech, baby!

thats what i say, screw the church anyway hehe

Dogg

 

[ed21x]

regardless of what the movie protrays, from the descriptions, this already sounds like a pretty bad movie.

 

[Lizardman]

HA, sound like a flick my girl friend would like. Not for me though.

 

[Kerouactivist]

I can't believe people are suprised that this movie is "making fun" of christianity.
Sorry Jesus freaks but, those of us who do not follow your religion but, are subjected to your constant irrational "jesus driven" ideas on how to run a society..how I should run my life....(censorship)etc etc and not just by the church but, by the govt just like GWB only supporting "don't Fvck" policies when if it were really being dealt with purely as a health issue (not a religous right one) the approach would be entirely different.
So what kinda of a reaction do your expect for people that don't believe in all your mumbo-jumbo.

 

[JupiterJones]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: JupiterJones

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: JupiterJones
Hey Fausto,

I appreciate the vulgarity via private message and then you refusing to hear my response. What are you, 13 years old?

Hey, you're the "adult" who's made a career of trolling ATOT. :roll:

Your definition of a troll is anyone who disagrees with you. While my views are certainly outside the mainstream, it would only be trolling if I espoused some view that I did not actually hold for the sole purpose of attracting predictable responses. Just because your bleating tripe is predictable doesn't make me a troll.

Okay fine, you're just a fundie whacko. Whatever.

Actually, Southern Baptist are evangelicals -- not fundamentalist.

Can you get anything right?

Jup

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: JupiterJones

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: JupiterJones

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: JupiterJones
Hey Fausto,

I appreciate the vulgarity via private message and then you refusing to hear my response. What are you, 13 years old?

Hey, you're the "adult" who's made a career of trolling ATOT. :roll:

Your definition of a troll is anyone who disagrees with you. While my views are certainly outside the mainstream, it would only be trolling if I espoused some view that I did not actually hold for the sole purpose of attracting predictable responses. Just because your bleating tripe is predictable doesn't make me a troll.

Okay fine, you're just a fundie whacko. Whatever.

And the sum of your argument is name-calling.

Jup

No, this is a side argument about whether you're a troll or not. The original question (What do some Christian sects do that causes others to mock them) hasn't really been answered yet.

Oh, and keep using the good buzzwords like "bleating"....makes you sound pretty smart, really.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: JupiterJones

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: JupiterJones

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: JupiterJones
Hey Fausto,

I appreciate the vulgarity via private message and then you refusing to hear my response. What are you, 13 years old?

Hey, you're the "adult" who's made a career of trolling ATOT. :roll:

Your definition of a troll is anyone who disagrees with you. While my views are certainly outside the mainstream, it would only be trolling if I espoused some view that I did not actually hold for the sole purpose of attracting predictable responses. Just because your bleating tripe is predictable doesn't make me a troll.

Okay fine, you're just a fundie whacko. Whatever.

Actually, Southern Baptist are evangelicals -- not fundamentalist.

Can you get anything right?

Jup

Main Entry: evan·gel·i·cal
Pronunciation: "E-"van-'je-li-k&l, "e-v&n-
Variant(s): also evan·gel·ic /-ik/
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels
2 : PROTESTANT
3 : emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual
4 a capitalized : of or relating to the Evangelical Church in Germany b often capitalized : of, adhering to, or marked by fundamentalism : FUNDAMENTALIST c often capitalized : LOW CHURCH
5 : marked by militant or crusading zeal : EVANGELISTIC <the evangelical ardor of the movement's leaders -- Amos Vogel>

The fifth definition might have something to do with why movies like this get made.