New film mocks Christianity

[JupiterJones]

Originally posted by: 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.

Your answer to the "original question" was that this resolution by the SBC last year was outrageous crap and justified denigrating them. I showed where plenty of other Christian groups (in particular Catholics) agreed and therefore the idea was not outrageous. In fact, the Catholic article referred to a Harvard study that supported the idea.

Maybe the problem is you use words without knowing the meaning (like you did with troll).

Outrageous - going beyond all standards of what is right or decent

Obviously the resolution does not go beyond ALL standards.

BTW, as to my use of the term "bleating". As long as you mindlessly bleat what you have been told the term fits. Read Animal Farm if you need help understanding the usage of the term.

Jup

 

[Mallow]

who CARES!

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: JupiterJones

Originally posted by: 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.

Your answer to the "original question" was that this resolution by the SBC last year was outrageous crap and justified denigrating them. I showed where plenty of other Christian groups (in particular Catholics) agreed and therefore the idea was not outrageous. In fact, the Catholic article referred to a Harvard study that supported the idea.

Maybe the problem is you use words without knowing the meaning (like you did with troll).

Outrageous - going beyond all standards of what is right or decent

Obviously the resolution does not go beyond ALL standards.

BTW, as to my use of the term "bleating". As long as you mindlessly bleat what you have been told the term fits. Read Animal Farm if you need help understanding the usage of the term.

Jup

PastorDon, or whatever your name is:

For the last time, the vaunted Harvard study is not a published study that concluded abstinence was the primary reason for the success in Uganda. It recommended that a comprehensive study of the anti-AIDS efforts in Uganda and five other countries be made and the results possibly applied to the method of fighting AIDS elsewhere. This comprehensive study has not yet been completed. As such, the Harvard Study you keep harping on has very little concrete bearing on this discussion. This is the third time I have stated this. You're so busy being offended by my language, you're not bothering to read the thread.

From the Harvard website:

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.

See? "may have been the significant determinants", not "were the significant determinants". This initial study has lead to a more comprehensive study. The results aren't in yet. Most other data points to the multi-pronged approach as the most effective in preventing the spread of AIDS.

 

[JupiterJones]

PastorDon, or whatever your name

Just call me Ray.





Lest you forget Fausto, what we are discussing (this time) is whether the SBC Resolution is outrageous crap. Not whether the Harvard study that is referred to on hundreds of websites is absolute truth.

I am not actually offended by your language. Responding to it is just.....easy.

It should be obvious to all by now that the SBC resolution is neither outrageous nor is it crap. In fact, the part you critize is a whereas, not a resolved. Your mad because they believed something they were told, not what they resolved to do.

Jup


RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, June 17?18, 2003, call on our churches to recognize the gravity of the global AIDS crisis; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we support humanitarian efforts, such as those launched by President Bush, to channel American resources to combat effectively the devastation of this disease; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we confess as Christians blessed to live in an affluent North American context that the Evil One will tempt us to concern ourselves with our own comfort and to ignore the cries of those suffering around the world; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we affirm that in the face of the AIDS victim, we see our neighbor (Luke 10:29?37)?a neighbor our Lord Jesus has commanded us to love as we love ourselves (Matthew 22:39); and be it further

RESOLVED, That we believe we will be reminded of the plight of this neighbor when we stand to give account before our King Jesus at the end of the age; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we call Southern Baptists to fervent and directed prayer and to energetic and focused action on behalf of those around the world suffering from this growing menace; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we call on our churches to model the reconciliation and mercy of the Kingdom of God by showing compassion to those suffering with AIDS?both across the globe and in our own church pews; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That we call on Southern Baptists to proclaim boldly to all people everywhere the only message of hope that can rescue any of us from the ultimate power of sin and death, the gospel of a crucified and resurrected Christ.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: JupiterJones

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: JupiterJones

Originally posted by: 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.

Your answer to the "original question" was that this resolution by the SBC last year was outrageous crap and justified denigrating them. I showed where plenty of other Christian groups (in particular Catholics) agreed and therefore the idea was not outrageous. In fact, the Catholic article referred to a Harvard study that supported the idea.

Maybe the problem is you use words without knowing the meaning (like you did with troll).

Outrageous - going beyond all standards of what is right or decent

Obviously the resolution does not go beyond ALL standards.

BTW, as to my use of the term "bleating". As long as you mindlessly bleat what you have been told the term fits. Read Animal Farm if you need help understanding the usage of the term.

Jup

PastorDon, or whatever your name is:

For the last time, the vaunted Harvard study is not a published study that concluded abstinence was the primary reason for the success in Uganda. It recommended that a comprehensive study of the anti-AIDS efforts in Uganda and five other countries be made and the results possibly applied to the method of fighting AIDS elsewhere. This comprehensive study has not yet been completed. As such, the Harvard Study you keep harping on has very little concrete bearing on this discussion. This is the third time I have stated this. You're so busy being offended by my language, you're not bothering to read the thread.

From the Harvard website:

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.

See? "may have been the significant determinants", not "were the significant determinants". This initial study has lead to a more comprehensive study. The results aren't in yet. Most other data points to the multi-pronged approach as the most effective in preventing the spread of AIDS.

Lest you forget Fausto, what we are discussing (on this side issue) is whether the SBC resolution is outrageous crap. Not whether the Harvard study that is referred to on hundreds of websites is absolute truth.

I am not actually offended by your language. Responding to it is just.....easy.

It should be obvious to all by now that the SBC resolution is neither outrageous nor is it crap.

Jup

If it were "obvious to all" I doubt this movie would even have been made and you wouldn't be feeling all persecuted and pouty. :roll:

 

[JupiterJones]

edit

 

[Fausto]

In fact, the part you critize is a whereas, not a resolved. Your mad because they believed something they were told, not what they resolved to do.

Right, because the whereas-es are the basis for the resolved-es, and some of them are leaps of logic based on current data (other than the Harvard thing).

WHEREAS, The most effective aspects of this initiative seek to move beyond the failed ?remedies? of the counterproductive ?safe sex? emphasis on condom distribution; and

WHEREAS, These aspects of the initiative instead focus on sexual abstinence until marriage and sexual fidelity within marriage, emphases consonant with a biblical view of human sexuality; and

...and so forth. Most persons, especially science persons, would strongly disagree with this approach. The resolutions are based on the success in primarily one country and there's been no official word from Harvard about how and why this worked. It appears to be a combination of factors, but the resolutions are latching onto the abstinence thing. GWB is doing the same thing (remember I work for the CDC) and this is completely counterproductive in the eyes of the scientific community.

 

[Ranger X]

Ahh, nothing like free publicity for this movie. Just think about Passion of the Christ and how well that controversy worked for Mel Gibson. He's laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[JupiterJones]

If it were "obvious to all" I doubt this movie would even have been made and you wouldn't be feeling all persecuted and pouty. :roll:

We are finally back to the subject of the thread. The movie was not made because the SBC deserved it (like you claimed), rather it is marketable due to the fact the Christians are the only group (Southerners maybe) that you can gleefully denigrate. The unanswered question is why is it ok to denigrate Christians when it is soooooooo awful to denigrate any other group regardless of how out there they are.

Answer that question and you will finally be on the road to enlightenment.

(hint - it's not because of SBC resolutions).

Jup

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: JupiterJones

If it were "obvious to all" I doubt this movie would even have been made and you wouldn't be feeling all persecuted and pouty. :roll:

We are finally back to the subject of the thread. The movie was not made because the SBC deserved it (like you claimed), rather it is marketable due to the fact the Christians are the only group (Southerners maybe) that you can gleefully denigrate. The unanswered question is why is it ok to denigrate Christians when it is soooooooo awful to denigrate any other group regardless of how out there they are.

Answer that question and you will finally be on the road to enlightenment.

(hint - it's not because of SBC resolutions).

Jup

Quick answer: Because Christians can be hypocrites, are perceived as not minding their own business, and because they foist their views on unwilling subjects. Not saying everyone does this, but the ones that do are the reason groups like Baptists and Catholics get a lot of crap....sometimes deservedly so.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: PatboyX
it a shame that the most powerful-influential group gets mocked.

No it's not. It's necessary for a healthy society.

i think you may have missed my point.

 

[JupiterJones]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: JupiterJones

If it were "obvious to all" I doubt this movie would even have been made and you wouldn't be feeling all persecuted and pouty. :roll:

We are finally back to the subject of the thread. The movie was not made because the SBC deserved it (like you claimed), rather it is marketable due to the fact the Christians are the only group (Southerners maybe) that you can gleefully denigrate. The unanswered question is why is it ok to denigrate Christians when it is soooooooo awful to denigrate any other group regardless of how out there they are.

Answer that question and you will finally be on the road to enlightenment.

(hint - it's not because of SBC resolutions).

Jup

Quick answer: Because Christians can be hypocrites, are perceived as not minding their own business, and because they foist their views on unwilling subjects. Not saying everyone does this, but the ones that do are the reason groups like Baptists and Catholics get a lot of crap....sometimes deservedly so.

You're actually close, but still looking at symptoms rather than causes. Try again.

Jup

 

[0roo0roo]

Ebert and Roeper give it two thumbs up streaming audio review up here http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/ebertandroeper/today.html
its not so much making fun of christianity, but fundamentalism.

 

[PatboyX]

the top of the heap always gets mocked. just be happy you're notably enough to be the target for satire.
regardless....we should all probably wait until we veiw the film to pass any judgements on what it is attempting to do.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: JupiterJones

Originally posted by: Fausto
My point was that Baptists set themselves up as targets for criticism because they are so extremely outspoken about certain issues. Every year is like "what outrageous crap will the SBC proclaim this time?" so of course people are going to take potshots at them.

Of course, your outrage is completely misguided, but you're not going to actually see the movie or read up on it anywhere besides WND, so just carry on with the trolling, I suppose.

A quick google turns up:

Keep your gay people off our boats!

Public schools are bad! Home-schooling or Christian Schools are better!

Education offered by state-run schools "is officially Godless," the resolution said, and public schools are adopting curricula and policies "teaching that a homosexual lifestyle is acceptable."

Typical: Preaching intolerance out of one side of your mouth while demanding tolerance for your group out of the other.

I see you have gone back and edited in some examples. However, these have not been voted on and do not represent the SBC. There are many proposed resolutions, but if you are going to attack the SBC, you will have to attack those resolutions which actually pass. Once again, here are the 2003 resolutions.. Which one is the outrageous crap you mentioned earlier?

Jup

http://www.sbcannualmeeting.net/sbc03/resolutions/sbcresolution.asp?ID=4

 

[xirtam]

I think this thread went off topic before it started.

Christianity is about a guy who was tortured, executed on the cross, and rose from the dead 2,000 years ago. Who's laughing?

Christianity is about forgiving people when they screw up, because hey, none of us are perfect. Who's laughing?

Christianity is about loving people, placing their needs and concerns above selfish desires. Who's laughing?

Christianity is about turning the other cheek when struck, providing food and drink to the hungry and thirsty, visiting those in prison, and supporting widows and orphans in their distress. Who's laughing?

This film is most likely mocking Christians, not Christianity. As such, it can be a potentially dangerous film, because I think a lot of Americans are too stupid to notice the difference. It might not even be attacking Christians in the same way that Dogma isn't mocking Catholicism. But again, some people are too stupid to notice the difference. It's not always easy to pinpoint an agenda. Perhaps if we could talk to or get some quotes from the producers, they might readily admit to an attempt to destroy Christianity or make people feel stupid for upholding its tenets, but I doubt it. The people being portrayed here are being mocked, from the sounds of it, for their inability to walk the Christian walk. Not for being the Baptists or the Southern Baptist Convention or the Catholics or the Presbyterians or the fill-in-the-denomination-here. Definitely a non-Christian perspective, because who wants to be mocked for failing? Christianity doesn't stoop to that level, although some Christians might. Again... who's laughing?

 

[LordMorpheus]

Originally posted by: JupiterJones

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: JupiterJones

Originally posted by: pulse8
It's a review of a review?

Anyway...who cares?

Exactly the point! Who cares? As long as it's Christians, almost nobody does.

In the past, the "Who cares?" would be asked of every group so denigrated. Who cares if it's blacks, Jews, or arabs?

Jup

I dunno. I'm Jewish and if someone made the same movie but with Jews, I'd have no problem with it.

Also, you guys are the majority and should expect some flack for that.

Actually, this film specifically targets Southern Baptist, a mere 5% of the US population.

Jup

I live in a Catholic family, and if this movie targets Southern Baptists, I will probably agree with what it says.

 

[CanOWorms]

Fundamental atheists are a lot more whacko than fundamental <insert religion here>. It's really fun to play around with them.

Anyways, I want to see this movie, it looks hilarious. "I'm filled with Christ-love!"

 

[0roo0roo]

and now the mock a christian movie is out today http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/ebertandroeper/today.html