OT: The Passion of the Christ movie

[Aiken]

Today I saw this film in the cinema. And good god I'm so full of impressions that I must express them somewhere and to somebody.

To clear the point: I'm not a Christian, quite the contrary - I'm atheist, but this day is the Last day in my life when I where able to blame Christianity or Jesus. Because I'm understand this religion now, its base and philosophy. And my conviction that his sacrifice was useless is even stronger now.

Many thanks to Mr. Gibson for this outstanding creation, I think every man considering himself as a christian must see this film, because visit to chirch is habit, not faith.
Every counter-christian considering himself objective must see this film in order to TRY to understand other point of view.

And Last one: if you noticed just blood and violence in this movie and missed Love - you don't understand what is love (I saw people, laughing in the middle of the film, and people who spoke "That the horrible bloody triller", so don't be surprised by my tone).

Sorry for spelling.

[Atrocities]

If your recommending it, then perhaps I should consider seeing it. I just don't know.

[Phoenix-D]

Sacrifice is useless? Which is still around again, the Roman Empire or Christianity?

[Aiken]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
Sacrifice is useless? Which is still around again, the Roman Empire or Christianity? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">In spite of 2000 years of Christianity, the same people who crucified him still rule our world. He would be in a great sorrow if he known that.

[Grauzone]

To this day i had an other opinion of this movie. I'll see him too, to understand the polarisation between so many opinions in this issue.

I have BIG respect on every man or woman who ever changed the world in so impressive manner such Jesus did. But too many sects of "Christianity" do not propagate what Jesus wanted. Their interpretations of his "will" and his "intetions" are very arbitrary. I can agree with very few of them, but in most cases i do not.

I'm atheist, but i understand why so many people need religion to live in this world. Religion and
"view of the world" should be an private issue of every person. We have only the right to discuss the acceptance of a "religion" if the doctrin of this philosophy is not compatible with our Laws or with our understanding of "human rights".

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
Sacrifice is useless? Which is still around again, the Roman Empire or Christianity? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The Roman Empire, masquerading as Christianity. It all started with Emperor Constantine wanting to integrate religion into his political toolkit, but it continued even after the original political authority, the Emperor, was gone. This is most obvious with Roman Catholicism since they have a single 'head' of their church comparable to the Emperor, but nearly all of the other sects are also political parties using religion to justify their authority, not religions. Only a few 'odd' movements on the fringes like the Quakers could really be called religious.

[freduk]

The movie is 95% pure torture. I think it is a rather bad movie, because it has nothing else to offer than just that.
Concerning your admiration for Jesus: he wasn't the only one to make that "sacrifice" as it is called.
A lot of people were tortured to death in those days, or did you think the tools of torture were invented solely for him?
The only thing that makes Jesus stand out from the other people that were tortured to death is the rumours that he resurrected, which I do not believe, of course.

[mottlee]

I think this movie was going over the Last 12 hours of his life, to show what was done to him and what was endured, I am a "christian" however I have yet to see this movie, I find it difficalt to hold my anger in when I think about what Man can/will do to Man http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[Azselendor]

I actually recommend this film to any and all people studying film. Congrats to Mel for making the second worst film in history. First being Gigli and Third being Plan Nine from Outer Space.

This is what I consider and shock'n'awe film. It's aim is to put up so much brutal and inhuman things on to the screen that the audience cringe and vomits from all points of entry and egress.

I too am an Athiest, however, I understand the point Jesus was making and the whole idea behind that entire biblical story. Sadly, Mel didn't do that. What Mel did was try to turn the bible into a film that points and screams "Look Look! Be a christian because of the way he died!"

I wholly agree man can be cruel to other men.

But the purpose of this film isn't to do that. It's to get christians frothing at the mouth and get them going door to door converting.

[Aiken]

Probably I was too categorical with my "must see" statement. I can bet that 80% of audience felt nothing but anger and loathing then watched this film. They saw only 1-st layer of the story, but totally missed the rest. That's not surprizing for me.

So sad that where so few people who still able to compassion and forgiveness http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[Aiken]

One guy says he regrets his crimes etc. and of course JC forgives him.
The other dude, however, remains sceptic and even a bit insulting towards JC's divine powers, and THEN a black raven appears, picking out the "evil" dudes eye. What does this mean? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">About that scene... since I'm neither Mel nor film critic/analyser I can't say for sure, but if the punishment of infidels was the main message of the film then we should saw the severe punishment of Pharisees and those romans with scourges. But we won't. Then remember Judas: it was satan who drove him to suicide, not god. And black raven is typically demonic symbol, but not divine like pigeon in christianity.

[Will]

Originally posted by Grauzone:
But too many sects of "Christianity" do not propagate what Jesus wanted. Their interpretations of his "will" and his "intetions" are very arbitrary. I can agree with very few of them, but in most cases i do not. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Jesus, deliver us from your followers!

[Atrocities]

"Follow me or I will have crows peck out your eyes!"

Sounds like a dictator to me. I just don't know.

[AMF]

"Speaketh thou not ill about thy government, lest we throw you in jail without anyone knowing, allowing access to a lawyer, recognition of any rights, or a trial by a jury of your peers"

Patriot Act, 2004

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by alarikf:
"Speaketh thou not ill about thy government, lest we throw you in jail without anyone knowing, allowing access to a lawyer, recognition of any rights, or a trial by a jury of your peers"

Patriot Act, 2004 <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If this were true, then why in the hell aren't all the protesters in Jail? Why have they not been declared enemies of the state and tossed away?

Simply, the law does not work like that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif The Patriot Act allows for violations of other rights, but it does not give them the right to just "throw" any one for any thing into jail without due-process.

And what does any of this have to do with the current discussion?

[Grauzone]

Originally posted by Will:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Grauzone:
But too many sects of "Christianity" do not propagate what Jesus wanted. Their interpretations of his "will" and his "intetions" are very arbitrary. I can agree with very few of them, but in most cases i do not. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Jesus, deliver us from your followers! </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I've never thought of foundation of an own "religion". But it is an good idea ... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

My opinion is found on missionaries tryed to proselytise me to some of this "churches". I remember my Last proselytisation: he wants to sell me forgiveness after my life, i want to bye fairness -> after 5 hours discussion no deal http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Now i'm waitig on my next missionary ... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Grauzone]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
And what does any of this have to do with the current discussion? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">sounds archaic. like old testament. burn the sinners. death to all enemies. erase the unbeleavers. interesting law http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[AMF]

RE:

Originally posted by Atrocities:
If this were true, then why in the hell aren't all the protesters in Jail? Why have they not been declared enemies of the state and tossed away?

Simply, the law does not work like that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif The Patriot Act allows for violations of other rights, but it does not give them the right to just "throw" any one for any thing into jail without due-process.

And what does any of this have to do with the current discussion? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Because you said ""Follow me or I will have crows peck out your eyes!"... Sounds like a dictator to me. I just don't know."

And so I was drawing the obvious parrellel between then and now in terms of dictators.

And, in reference to:

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Simply, the law does not work like that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif The Patriot Act allows for violations of other rights, but it does not give them the right to just "throw" any one for any thing into jail without due-process.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, as I understand it, the Patriot act gives the government the right to "throw just anyone in jail" so long as they are declared to be "terrorists" - and does revoke their right to due process, representation, outside notification, etc all based on the good faith of the government. And they say they don;t torture people too...the point being that no one is watching the watchmen, the people now rely upon the good faith of the government to govern itself and its behaviour unless I've got it wrong...and, in terms of this discussion, heck, not sure that it does relate, but someone brought up dictators...although if you ask me, any decent christian nowadays should be considering Bush and Ashcroft to be the latest incarnations of the anti-christ...

[Atrocities]

I believe that you are mistaken regarding the Patriot Act.

All I wanted to know is what any of your statement had to do with the current dicussion. Now I know. Thanks. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

And It was Clinton / Gore who were the true anti christs. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ May 23, 2004, 23:35: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[freduk]

We'll it wasn't hidden within the movie that JC was such a forgiving dude. Actually it was right on the forefront, the movie was about torture and the ultimate forgiveness and compassion of JC.

I just wasn't very impressed by it

One question has arisen having seen this movie: final scene: JC and some crooks are nailed and/or strapped to crosses.
One guy says he regrets his crimes etc. and of course JC forgives him.
The other dude, however, remains sceptic and even a bit insulting towards JC's divine powers, and THEN a black raven appears, picking out the "evil" dudes eye. What does this mean?

1) JC is forgiving, as long as you follow His way?
2) We have a punishing god, who goes around torturing people whenever he likes?
3) MEL does not understand his own religion???

[Azselendor]

Atrocities, take a visit to an immigration court or even the jail if you can get a tour of one.

I took an offer once to view a homeland security immigration jail and I was stunned by the cruel mistreatment of not just immigrants, but to naturalized citizens and war veterans who were being held in jail without access to a lawyer or a fair trial or even proper sanitation.

[Atrocities]

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif I don't know what to say to your post. I honestly pray that no person is being wrongfully held, and or mistreated.

If they are, then hell yes we need a way to litigate their freedom.

Sometimes the idology of better safe than sorry has a human cost that is more often than not over looked.

I wish them all well.

[Fyron]

Bush is just following in the footsteps of people like FDR...

[Aiken]

Originally posted by Yef:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by aiken:
In spite of 2000 years of Christianity, the same people who crucified him still rule our world. He would be in a great sorrow if he known that. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And what is that suppossed to mean?

There were two people involved in Mr J cruxificion, the Romans and the Jews, and the Romans are no more, so it obviously means that the Jews rule the world!
Very nice. That's why I'll never see that awful movie. People comes out of the theater with an slightly diferent view of the world.
Brainwashing at its best. (or worst) [/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It's supposed to mean that mankind the same horde of barbarians as it was 2k years ago, inspite of the civilization, technical progress and such.

And it was your deduction about Jews, not mine - everybody see what he wants to see. I can't see anything wrong about jews in this film, sorry.

And I wonder how anybody can judge the film/picture/book without seing/reading it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Originally posted by Grauzone:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Atrocities:
And what does any of this have to do with the current discussion? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">sounds archaic. like old testament. burn the sinners. death to all enemies. erase the unbeleavers. interesting law http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I can recall no instance of 'erase the unbelievers' without human sacrifice being involved. Nor were sinners burnt, that I recall. And the death penalty was only mandatory for adultry and first degree murder.

Compared with other historical law's of the time, I would call Isreal's ancient laws enlightened.

[Grauzone]

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
I can recall no instance of 'erase the unbelievers' without human sacrifice being involved. Nor were sinners burnt, that I recall. And the death penalty was only mandatory for adultry and first degree murder.

Compared with other historical law's of the time, I would call Isreal's ancient laws enlightened. [/QB]<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">i tell what i read in the bible (doings of GOD not of the people):

burn the sinners -> sodom and gomorra
erase the unbeleavers -> the Flood, death of innocent first burn children, ...

The GOD in the old testament is an good exampe of a very good dictator. Efficient by enforcement of his will and brutal to all "opposition".

The Ten Commandments are as a matter of fact enlightened in this time (most of them in our times too).

[Combat Wombat]

Wouldn't it be funny if when they release it on DVD it has alternate endings included.

[dogscoff]

CW: What a beautiful thought. I'm giggling like a maniac right now just thinking about it (and trying to dream up suitable endings).

I haven't seen this film, but I assume the Judean People's Front Crack Suicide Squad actually succed in rescuing the Messiah in this Version..?

[Urendi Maleldil]

If God wants to destroy us, that's his perogative. He made us after all. And it won't be because he's evil. It will be because he's righteous, we are most definitely not.

Just look at the war in Iraq, Terrorism, the prisoner abuses, all the name-calling and backbiting in the media. We see it now, but it's been going on for a long time. We humans are not nice people. We care too much about ourselves and too little about others.

I think that's the whole point of the Jesus story a la this movie. While we deserve destruction by horrible fire, God still loves us so much that he'll become mortal and get his guts ripped out in agony, suffering the punishment that we deserve justly.

It was our trecherous nature that drove the whip to a truly innocent man. The only one ever born into this world.

Death is the only way out of our predicament. You can either die yourself, or accept the death of Jesus and let him give you a new life. Both choices Last a very long time. And both are permanent.

[Grauzone]

Originally posted by Urendi Maleldil:
If God wants to destroy us, that's his perogative. He made us after all. And it won't be because he's evil. It will be because he's righteous, we are most definitely not.

...

Death is the only way out of our predicament. You can either die yourself, or accept the death of Jesus and let him give you a new life. Both choices Last a very long time. And both are permanent.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I understand your position. Here is an other point of view:
there is no GOD. religions are life philosophies, helps people to live ther life with less fear of death and other unpleasentnesses of ther life.

on this basis we can compare religions in the life they induce. from this position bible is an philosophy book and we can discuss it as such. this book describes tho very different philosophies: old one (before JC), new one (introduced by JC). i like only one of them (the second) as life philosophy, but old testament is more exciting as story. Also we can consider GOD as an actor in this story.

But religion is private issue of every human (or alien http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). And it is not my intension to harm feelings of other people. I'm not dogmatic and accept that GOD may exist. Or many other Gods, i do not discriminate other religions. I have no proof of their existence or nonexistence.

[dogscoff]

If God wants to destroy us, that's his perogative. He made us after all. And it won't be because he's evil. It will be because he's righteous, we are most definitely not.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hmm. Righteous or not, anyone tries to destroy me is gonna get a kick in the nuts.

[EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro]

Even though it's a non Muslim movie, the government of Iran wants the movie shown in Tehran because of it's perceived "anti Jewish" message. Man is that wrong on so many levels. Not only are they not understanding the basic premise of Christianity, but are using an event out of antiquity to condem another religious group.
I vaguely remeber a movie from the 70's called Muhammed: Messenger of God. The Muslims freaked because they thought it pictured Muhammed (a big no-no) but it was a movie from his point of view (and camera too). There were riots, movie theaters were burned with doors locked and people inside, Fatwah's issued. And like a big Three's Company episode; all a big misunderstanding! No real point to this second part except; Man, religion is kooky.

I pray to the Red Star of the Solar Empire.
Always trust your car to the men with the Red Star

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by Grauzone:
i like only one of them (the second) as life philosophy, but old testament is more exciting as story. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Looks good on paper. On a historical scoreboard however the first one has a better record. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Fyron]

The funny thing about many religions is that at their core, they preach peace, love and nonviolence, yet they still lead to death, suffering, and violence on a mass scale... Well, it really isn't funny, more ironic...

[gregebowman]

Originally posted by aiken:
[And I wonder how anybody can judge the film/picture/book without seing/reading it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif [/QB]<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Umm, isn't the word your'e looking for is The Bible? I can't believe I read all of these Posts and hardly anyone mentioned that word. If you're looking for the "book" that was used for The Passion Of The Christ, it's called The New Testament. Preferably out of the King James Version, but I think the Catholics may have another slightly different Version they use, and that's what Mel Gibson may have used for reference for his movie. I thought it was a great movie. Was I "moved"? Not to the extent I would have gone to a police station and confessed to any possible crimes I may have committed. But I think it's probably the most realistic and historical movie about the crucifixion ever done.

[gregebowman]

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
[ [/qb]<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I can recall no instance of 'erase the unbelievers' without human sacrifice being involved. Nor were sinners burnt, that I recall. And the death penalty was only mandatory for adultry and first degree murder.

][/QUOTE]

Not true. If you read the Old Testament, or sit in church for about 10 years like I did when I was in my teens, then you find God wasn't as forgiving back then as he is now. Not only were adulterers and murderers killed (usually by stoning), he didn't like people who committed beastiality and witches. They were to be killed also. I'm pretty sure he didn't like homosexuals also, but can't remember now if they were to be killed also (although I'm pretty they were). There's probably more examples in the Bible of types of people God really didn't like, but I can't recall anymore than what I've already typed.

[freduk]

In the old testament (which is the exact same Version as muslims have in their koran) it is indeed written that homo's etc should be stoned, and that it is okey to slap your wife with a stick or stone her if she misbehaves.

I know this because there are a lot of muslims in my country(10% of the total pop.) Who still live by these old rules (Well not all of them, but almost half) and are causing a lot of controversy in my country, especially since they think of christians (which means non-muslims in their point of view) to be less than a pig.

Action should be taken against them.

[Edited by Moderator]

[ May 25, 2004, 11:28: Message edited by: Mephisto ]

[Raging Deadstar]

Ok, I'm extremely against religion in all it's forms (although some have redeeming qualitys like buddhism) But i definitely disagree with that Last comment.

Even though i absoloutly deplore homophobia (a lot of my friends are "gay" for lack of a better word, it has such a stigma) and I absoloutly detest the idea of hitting a partner. But however much i dislike their ideals, beliefs and practices they are human after all, and are therefore allowed to believe in what they wish, Human Rights and all.

One day i think we as a race will evolve round the need to believe in a god/gods to explain things and also provide a social/moral code to live by. Of course this is just My Humble Opinion, hopefully one day, even if there is an Omnipotent energy being behind it all (fyron? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ) i hope we can just learn to get along! Idealistic and Naive of me perhaps but until then we havn't got much of chance...

So there's my 2 pennies so to speak (I'm english http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

[Azselendor]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif I don't know what to say to your post. I honestly pray that no person is being wrongfully held, and or mistreated.

If they are, then hell yes we need a way to litigate their freedom.

Sometimes the idology of better safe than sorry has a human cost that is more often than not over looked.

I wish them all well. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The unfortunate part of this is that suicide rates and prison abuse in these jails - on american soil - are largely ignored and buried away. Some of those people have been thier for years on offenses as minor as speeding or expired tags.

Under current immigration law, homeland security can pull up any offense from 1976 to present (despite the law for this being made in 1996), no matter how minor, and declare it an aggrevated felony. Send thanks to Mcvay family for that.

[Yef]

Originally posted by aiken:
In spite of 2000 years of Christianity, the same people who crucified him still rule our world. He would be in a great sorrow if he known that. [/QB]<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And what is that suppossed to mean?

There were two people involved in Mr J cruxificion, the Romans and the Jews, and the Romans are no more, so it obviously means that the Jews rule the world!
Very nice. That's why I'll never see that awful movie. People comes out of the theater with an slightly diferent view of the world.
Brainwashing at its best. (or worst)

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Originally posted by Grauzone:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
I can recall no instance of 'erase the unbelievers' without human sacrifice being involved. Nor were sinners burnt, that I recall. And the death penalty was only mandatory for adultry and first degree murder.

Compared with other historical law's of the time, I would call Isreal's ancient laws enlightened. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">i tell what i read in the bible (doings of GOD not of the people):

burn the sinners -> sodom and gomorra
erase the unbeleavers -> the Flood, death of innocent first burn children, ...

The GOD in the old testament is an good exampe of a very good dictator. Efficient by enforcement of his will and brutal to all "opposition".

The Ten Commandments are as a matter of fact enlightened in this time (most of them in our times too). [/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Considering that there was a mob in sodom and gomorra gathered to rape a couple of people and nobody outside Lot's? house interfered, I think that might be another indicater of why the society was destroyed.

As for the flood? I beleive that to be justified, but I can only base that on my faith in a just God and the general trend in Old Testament history up to that time. You can only base your opposition on a beleif that that many people can't be wrong.

And, in my understanding, the Hebrew people were held to a higher standard than the surounding people. Something they promised.

[Urendi Maleldil]

Religion means nothing. All that matters is what is true. If something is true, it's true for me, true for you, and true for any Martians out there.

Since religions are beliefs about what is true, a religeon must be believed in order to be followed. Few people follow something they believe is false.

It's a bad idea to let your friend go on believing something false about something so important as life, the universe, and everything.

If I believe there is no God, and after you die there's nothing, who cares what other people believe? In my world there's only pleasure and pain. There's no such thing as absolute right and wrong. If I believe something is right, it makes me feel good. If it's wrong it makes me feel bad. Live and let live. That's what I say. The guy down the street believes something else? Don't rock the boat. He should believe what he feels is true. This works for me. I don't push my beliefs on others. That hurts. Both me and them. We can be friends without our opinions getting in the way.

If I believe God is true, then I believe we're in deep doo doo. God is just and justly destroys pride, prejudice, and all the rest of them. We're prideful and prejudicial. Unless God gives us a way out, we're bound for loneliness and sorrow-- utter destruction of your self. All your hopes and dreams shattered for infinity. But God, filled with compassion, provides a just way out. It's a narrow way, but it's straight like a laser. He took the destruction and on himself to set you free from the justice you deserve. My friend down the street doesn't believe this? He's in deep trouble. I have to help him.

In the first instance, I don't really care about what other people believe. I don't believe it's important. You die, you die. That's it. The guy down the street pisses me off 'cause he's always trying to push his "religion" on others. It's a personal thing. I believe there is no God. It's my opinion. All he's doing is causing other people pain.

In the second instance, I care very much about what others believe. It's important because the guy down the street is headed for destruction. I care about this guy. I don't want him to wind up regretting his life for the rest of infinity. If I really care about this guy, I'll do whatever I can to convince this guy that the destruction is real, and that God is real, and that Jesus is real. No matter the pain. Rocking the boat hurts? Suck it up, hombre.

So the degree to which someone will try and convince you of something is proportional to how important they believe that thing to be and how much they care about you, because that's how much pain they will be willing to endure to convince you of it.

Look at Jesus. That's not pain for pain's sake. That's pain for you personally. He must have a five gallon bucket of knowing something up there, 'cause that's a lot of pain. Men like that don't suffer pain for no good reason.

It's tough to believe in because love is so simple. It's easy to think too hard about it and miss the point completely. Children can understand it easily, while some of the greatest minds end up wrestling with it for their whole lives.

[Gandalf Parker]

This thread is nearing the point where someone may be forced to show their wrath and erase all of the unchosen which sully the world which is forum. (threads which are OT) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

For if it does make the world unfriendly to those who have sought it out for its declared purpose, only to find it a den of iniquity, then it too shall fade from the world.

[Fyron]

If I believe there is no God... There's no such thing as absolute right and wrong.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">"God" is not needed to have morality.

[ May 25, 2004, 04:17: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"> If I believe there is no God... There's no such thing as absolute right and wrong.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">"God" is not needed to have morality. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">He specified a specific sub-class of ethics; the absolute variety. As unproveable fundamental assumptions are unavoidable, some form of authority/authoritative document that is totally trusted (divine) is required for that sub-class - else, when someone recognizes and disagrees with one or more of those fundamental assumptions, there isn't anything that can be said.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Urendi Maleldil <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'm not going to qoute the whole thing. I will simply say that our missionaries are instructed to go away if told to and that free will is an essential beleif of my religeon and that I will never force my beleif's on anyone, simply state them and disagree with what I beleive are people's misconceptions. If you tell me to never bother you with my religeos beleif's again, I will, to the best of my memory, never bother you with my religeos beleif's again. A forced conVersion means nothing.

[Ruatha]

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
This thread is nearing the point where someone may be forced to show their wrath and erase all of the unchosen which sully the world which is forum. (threads which are OT) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

For if it does make the world unfriendly to those who have sought it out for its declared purpose, only to find it a den of iniquity, then it too shall fade from the world. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">We've had off topic threads before that have been heated, still most is read before an answer is written and sometimes it's a debate instead of just stubbornly pointing out one's opinions, and for us who just read the thread it's interesting.

I don't think shrapnel should go in and participate in a thread and then delete it if they aren't happy with the content as long as it's not open racistic or plain stupid.
(but yes, after reading through this thread I too can see that it has touched upon both those criterias http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif And perhaps this particular thread is closing in on the deletion point...)

[ May 25, 2004, 05:59: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

[Mephisto]

We at the SEIV forum have traveld the OT road before and with much more heat. All the people that went on this road are still here and still talking to one another so I see no need to cut this one road short.

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
This thread is nearing the point where someone may be forced to show their wrath and erase all of the unchosen which sully the world which is forum. (threads which are OT) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

For if it does make the world unfriendly to those who have sought it out for its declared purpose, only to find it a den of iniquity, then it too shall fade from the world. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

[dogscoff]

{Muslims}... Action should be taken against them.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Freduk I see you're from the netherlands. Next time you're in Amsterdam I suggest spending a few hours in the Anne Frank Museum- Hopefully that will be enough to make you think twice about taking action sections of your community based on their religion.

[Edited by Moderator]

[ May 25, 2004, 11:30: Message edited by: Mephisto ]

[trooper]

Originally posted by freduk:

I know this because there are a lot of muslims in my country [censored].
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Freduk, watch your Tongue, such words give a despectable image of our community.
I'm going to ask for the deletion of your post.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

It sounds possible to me he was saying >racist, sexist< muslims should be taken action against. While I think this is counter-productive and wrong, perhaps he should be given the benifit of the doubt and the opportunity to explain.

[Quote edited by Moderator]

[ May 25, 2004, 11:30: Message edited by: Mephisto ]

[EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro]

Strange, the Dutch are usually the most tolerant people on earth. Still how do you respond to tolerant people letting intolerant people in your own country who despise you and want to kill you. You Europeans must have the patience of a saint. Letting in people who don't respect you and who don't want to integrate into your society.
Don't know what happened but history shows that the Muslims were very tolerant of other religions in the middle ages. It was our sword wielding Christian ancestors that were brutally nuts!

[Simeron]

Seems a really wierd place to discuss this but, its been that kind of week....

Personally, and let me say that again....

Personally....I see religion as a tool that can be used for good or evil. Religion always seems to end up doing more harm then good though to me.

Faith on the other hand is the exact opposite. Faith is a matter of belief and normally seems to end up helping out more then harming.

A persons faith is a matter of personal belief.

Religion is more the motions of the faith, the "Motius Operandi" more or less.

As long as the religion does not seek to impose its view/tenants/MO on people through force but by choice, then its fine. I may think its wrong but, that is my choice.

But when you get to the point of saying "if you don't follow our religion you will be punished" THEN I have a problem with it. Because you are now moving from the tenants of FAITH to a political system based on a belief.

You might cloak your politics in religious vestments but, its still POLITICAL and has NOTHING to do with faith.

How can I say that? Because faith has nothing to do with the machanics of religion, it is a personal belief and therefore, can not be forced, imposed or directed from outside in any way. Faith ALWAYS comes from within to the without.

Religion ALWAYS comes from without to the within.

So when you begin discussing religion, understand what you are actually doing is discussing politics and as the ancient saying goes...

"One sure way to end up in an arguement is discuss religion or politics."

No religion is perfect just as no political system is. But, the best you can do is find one that fits YOUR Faith/Belief and then try to stick with it.

When this makes it where you begin to try to impose your ways on others, then you have crossed the line from faith to religion. At that point, you have become the enemy of everyone including those of the faith you profess because you have now become a threat to others whereas before, you were no threat to others at all.

It is when people become a threat that action MUST be taken to remove that threat.

The question at that point is not IF you are going to do something, but What and When you are going to.

My PERSONAL belief is quite simple on this.

If they are not a threat...leave them to thier own ways and means. Keep an open dialog but, don't become the threat yourself.

If they ARE a threat...do whatever it takes to remove that threat so that it doesn't increase in size. Regardless of all other factors, first contain, then remove the threat.

An example of this from recent news, the killing of an innocent young man because criminals were not released.

Problem, the people that murdered this man will continue to do so in hopes these criminals are released.

Solution, you march 100 of these criminals out and execute them summarily with the message.

"We have freed 100 of those you wanted free...from thier lives. For each innocent you kill, 100 more of your comrades will be freed in a similar fashion until we run out of them. But we will be hunting you also so you too may one day be freed in similar fashion. To avoid further deaths of your comrades is quite simple. Do NOT kill innocents in an attempt to free them. Their lives are in YOUR hands."

Yes, that lowers us to thier level but, I assure you, being at thier level will make it where they fully understand that taking hostages and then killing them will not achieve thier goals. Once they know for sure that not only will they not achieve thier goals but in fact, it will have the exact OPPOSITE effect, they will seek other ways to achieve thier goals. Now, this may be a bad or a good thing...time will tell.

But to arbitrarily say "all" of any faith or religion is bad makes the person saying it far worse then the people they are talking about to me.

(Shrugs) But, I am a "war mongering" person I am told. I'm an old warrior and soldier true enough but, any old vet like me will tell you, we hope to never use our training and prefer nothing more then to fade away into the mists of time unused. I don't love war but, war will show you the best and worst in people like nothing else. It will end all discussions and debates like nothing else and it will come to an end eventually.

I have a simple philosophy about things like this. If it works, don't fix it.

War works. Fear works. Mankind is barbaric by nature but, we simply have to say, we won't be barbaric...today.

When people choose to be barbaric and wage war, answer them with all the savage barbarism and brutal warfare you can muster to strike fear into them and destroy thier ability to war. Try to limit your fury to those that deserve it but, if there are innocent casualties, sad as it is, accept them as the price of removing the threat. Fact is that while it is sad that innocents died in the fighting, if you didn't fight and end the ability of those that started the war in the first place, many more innocents would end up dead anyway.

People that don't deserve to die...die in war. Just like people that DO deserve to die do. This is why war should be the LAST resort and not the first. But when the time comes to go to war...go to war fully and with all the power you can muster so that when its over, you won't have to fight another one anytime soon.

If that makes me a warmonger...then so be it. I don't seek to impose my beliefs or views or even way of life on others. I don't seek to hunt down and kill people that just want to live thier lives in peace. But, for those that would force others to bow to them, I will seek them out and do my best to make it where they can't.

I figure that is the best thing I can do for the average person, give them a chance to make it or not on thier own.

Its all you can really ask in this life. A chance to live free and without shackles save those you choose to wear yourself.

[Atrocities]

Discussion and debate are healthy ways of communicating. It becomes unhealthy when we stop talking and start shooting one another.

I don't know about many of you, but for me it is the occational angry and heated debates that spice up the forum and keep me interested.

Honestly if we did not all share our own thoughts on a subject, thoughts from around the world, then how informed are we in the end?

I like to think that I am a better person in some respects because I know that I can come here and read poeples Posts who are from other parts of the world and share a differant view of world topics than I.

I count my self damn lucky to be a member in this forum with you people.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Simeron:
As long as the religion does not seek to impose its view/tenants/MO on people through force but by choice, then its fine. I may think its wrong but, that is my choice.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Slight problem ... civilization is based upon some group imposing and enforcing some portion of their beliefs on others - else, on what basis can you hunt down a murderer? Sure, he's a murder by YOUR views (and perhaps the views of a very large number of people/large percentage of the population) but it is quite possible that in his views, it is quite reasonable to kill someone over what the rest of us would consider something minor. But if you hunt him down for it, you are effectively forcing your set of rules on him, no? Originally posted by Simeron:
But when you get to the point of saying "if you don't follow our religion you will be punished" THEN I have a problem with it. Because you are now moving from the tenants of FAITH to a political system based on a belief.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">All political systems are based on a belief of some sort - not necessarily in a diety of any kind, but in some belief - Capitalism is based on the belief that greed can be harnessed for the good of most; Socialism is based on the belief that people are responsible enough to work towards the common good without a "large" rewards system; Democracy is based on the belief that the masses can, on average, make good policy decisions; Despotism is based on the belief that one strong leader will run things best (although "best" is subject to interpertation - in many instances, that becomes "best ... for the despot"). Originally posted by Simeron:

You might cloak your politics in religious vestments but, its still POLITICAL and has NOTHING to do with faith.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's true of many portions of politics, such as recource allocations, contract-enforcement strategies, road routes, economic planning, et cetera; I can't agree with it on such things as the definition of person for use in determining whether a given action is murder or not. Originally posted by Simeron:

How can I say that? Because faith has nothing to do with the machanics of religion, it is a personal belief and therefore, can not be forced, imposed or directed from outside in any way. Faith ALWAYS comes from within to the without.

Religion ALWAYS comes from without to the within.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">In which Category would you put ethics (e.g., the commandments "Thou Shalt Not Murder" and "Thou Shalt Not Steal")? Originally posted by Simeron:
When this makes it where you begin to try to impose your ways on others, then you have crossed the line from faith to religion. At that point, you have become the enemy of everyone including those of the faith you profess because you have now become a threat to others whereas before, you were no threat to others at all.

It is when people become a threat that action MUST be taken to remove that threat.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And yet, you would impose a portion of your own views on others, which could be paraphrased as: "Don't impose your own views on others." That seems a little contradictory. But maybe that's just me.

[Atrocities]

So is this movie worth seeing or should we just wait until its on DVD and rent it?

[trooper]

That doesn't make much difference. This vocabulary is inappropriate here.

[Renegade 13]

Originally posted by Mephisto:
We at the SEIV forum have traveld the OT road before and with much more heat. All the people that went on this road are still here and still talking to one another so I see no need to cut this one road short. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">"With much more heat" ?? That's possible??

And I have one request: I've noticed a couple of Posts have been edited by a moderator. Now, I didn't see them before they were edited, and I probably wouldn't have been offended even if I had read them. But I'd just like this to be a civilized conversation, so please don't post stuff that might be taken in an unintended way, or offensive subject matter. Like I said, it doesn't bother me, but it might bother some people.

As some other's would say, just my $0.02

[TerranC]

Originally posted by Renegade 13:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Mephisto:
We at the SEIV forum have traveld the OT road before and with much more heat. All the people that went on this road are still here and still talking to one another so I see no need to cut this one road short. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">"With much more heat" ?? That's possible??
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Do a search on Iraq. You'll see what he's talking about then.

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by TerranC:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Renegade 13:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Mephisto:
We at the SEIV forum have traveld the OT road before and with much more heat. All the people that went on this road are still here and still talking to one another so I see no need to cut this one road short. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">"With much more heat" ?? That's possible??
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Do a search on Iraq. You'll see what he's talking about then. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What has gone on in the past is up for change. Shrapnel is beginning to take an interest in the Boards. Everything has its pros and cons, including shrapnels interest.

[solops]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
So is this movie worth seeing or should we just wait until its on DVD and rent it? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If you are not a Christian then don't bother. It would likely have little meaning or virtue.

If you are a Christian then you MIGHT want to see it. My Sunday school class went to see it. 12 people came away with twelve completely different experiences, ranging from "what an aweful bloodbath" to "sublime". I found it well done and deeply moving in many ways...and I never want to see it again.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
What has gone on in the past is up for change. Shrapnel is beginning to take an interest in the Boards. Everything has its pros and cons, including shrapnels interest. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I had not the impression that in the past when Richard surfed the board Shrapnel had no interest in the Boards.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Mephisto:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
What has gone on in the past is up for change. Shrapnel is beginning to take an interest in the Boards. Everything has its pros and cons, including shrapnels interest. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I had not the impression that in the past when Richard surfed the board Shrapnel had no interest in the Boards. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I also did not get any such impression. The impression that I got was that Shrapnel was always perfectly ok with OT discussions.

[ May 26, 2004, 05:44: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Simeron]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Simeron:
As long as the religion does not seek to impose its view/tenants/MO on people through force but by choice, then its fine. I may think its wrong but, that is my choice.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Slight problem ... civilization is based upon some group imposing and enforcing some portion of their beliefs on others - else, on what basis can you hunt down a murderer? Sure, he's a murder by YOUR views (and perhaps the views of a very large number of people/large percentage of the population) but it is quite possible that in his views, it is quite reasonable to kill someone over what the rest of us would consider something minor. But if you hunt him down for it, you are effectively forcing your set of rules on him, no? Originally posted by Simeron:
But when you get to the point of saying "if you don't follow our religion you will be punished" THEN I have a problem with it. Because you are now moving from the tenants of FAITH to a political system based on a belief.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">All political systems are based on a belief of some sort - not necessarily in a diety of any kind, but in some belief - Capitalism is based on the belief that greed can be harnessed for the good of most; Socialism is based on the belief that people are responsible enough to work towards the common good without a "large" rewards system; Democracy is based on the belief that the masses can, on average, make good policy decisions; Despotism is based on the belief that one strong leader will run things best (although "best" is subject to interpertation - in many instances, that becomes "best ... for the despot"). Originally posted by Simeron:

You might cloak your politics in religious vestments but, its still POLITICAL and has NOTHING to do with faith.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's true of many portions of politics, such as recource allocations, contract-enforcement strategies, road routes, economic planning, et cetera; I can't agree with it on such things as the definition of person for use in determining whether a given action is murder or not. Originally posted by Simeron:

How can I say that? Because faith has nothing to do with the machanics of religion, it is a personal belief and therefore, can not be forced, imposed or directed from outside in any way. Faith ALWAYS comes from within to the without.

Religion ALWAYS comes from without to the within.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">In which Category would you put ethics (e.g., the commandments "Thou Shalt Not Murder" and "Thou Shalt Not Steal")? Originally posted by Simeron:
When this makes it where you begin to try to impose your ways on others, then you have crossed the line from faith to religion. At that point, you have become the enemy of everyone including those of the faith you profess because you have now become a threat to others whereas before, you were no threat to others at all.

It is when people become a threat that action MUST be taken to remove that threat.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And yet, you would impose a portion of your own views on others, which could be paraphrased as: "Don't impose your own views on others." That seems a little contradictory. But maybe that's just me. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Perhaps but you will see that while I am using my own views I am not imposing them on others but in fact am reacting to an outside force. That is the major difference.

Being reactive is not the same as being proactive. Proactive is the place where you have the problems, not the reactive.

So in the case of the murderer, the murderer already took it upon themselves to impose THIER views on the victim so, by hunting them down you are being reactive to thier crossing the line first. If they never killed in the first place then you would not be doing anything to them hence, you would not be imposing your views at all.

Murder is something that is very easy to determine in many cases as the victim simply did not deserve to die due to not doing anything to anyone. When the victim has actually done something is where the case could be made that the killer was reacting to the victim. But again, you must put it back to the test of who is being proactive and who is being reactive.

Did the "murderer" react to a threat or did they proactively kill to enforce thier own code of ethics?

Ethics is a political choice whereas Morals is a faith based one. A simple proof is Morals are more or less from within but Ethics come from without. Most children know it is not good to hurt another child but, taking thier toy on the other hand has to be taught to them.

So, while the case can be made that by reacting to someone is "imposing" my views on them it still leaves the imputus on the other side as it is thier actions that trigger my actions to stop them. The proactive side is the one that starts the movement.

[Simeron]

As for the movie, I personally found it okay. Nothing super spiritual but also nothing shockingly horrorful. Of course, being a medival and ancient history buff I understood the principle of Roman torture/punishment rather well and being a devote Christian, I understood exactly how horrid the price Jesus paid for me was, at least as much as a man can I suppose.

One thing I thought was very well done was the scenes where Satan was there, whispering. I do think the movie was very well done, well acted and well written and did exactly what Mel Gibson intented for it to do which, personally, I think was to awaken people to the story of Jesus as it pertained to His death and resurrection.

If you are a Christian, I highly recommend you go and see it if for no other reason than to be able to discuss it with knowledge when it inevitably comes up in discussion.

If you are NOT a Christian, I say it would still be a good movie to watch if you wanted to see a well done movie able the death of Jesus as it pertains to the Christian faith.

If you don't really care about Jesus's trial and death as it pertains to the Christian faith then no, I wouldn't recommend going to see it as you will not enjoy it at all as that is the gist of the movie and the crux of the material contained within it.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Simeron:
Perhaps but you will see that while I am using my own views I am not imposing them on others but in fact am reacting to an outside force. That is the major difference.

Being reactive is not the same as being proactive. Proactive is the place where you have the problems, not the reactive.

So in the case of the murderer, the murderer already took it upon themselves to impose THIER views on the victim so, by hunting them down you are being reactive to thier crossing the line first. If they never killed in the first place then you would not be doing anything to them hence, you would not be imposing your views at all.

Murder is something that is very easy to determine in many cases as the victim simply did not deserve to die due to not doing anything to anyone. When the victim has actually done something is where the case could be made that the killer was reacting to the victim. But again, you must put it back to the test of who is being proactive and who is being reactive.

Did the "murderer" react to a threat or did they proactively kill to enforce thier own code of ethics?

Ethics is a political choice whereas Morals is a faith based one. A simple proof is Morals are more or less from within but Ethics come from without. Most children know it is not good to hurt another child but, taking thier toy on the other hand has to be taught to them.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Those aren't quite the standard definitions of ethics and morality - the standard definition would be more along the lines of "ethics are rules to live by, moraility is how well they are followed". Your definitions will work well enough for this discussion, however. Originally posted by Simeron:

So, while the case can be made that by reacting to someone is "imposing" my views on them it still leaves the imputus on the other side as it is thier actions that trigger my actions to stop them. The proactive side is the one that starts the movement. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">*shrug* the murderer is being reactive if he's, say, avenging an insult to his family's honor, or if the victim was was going to get a law passed that would make the murderer's current livelyhood illegal (to pull a situation out of history: whale hunting), or if the victim was tresspassing, and such. In such cases, the victim was forcing a small portion of his/her ethics on the murderer: In the case of the insult, from the victim's POV, that wasn't a deadly insult, it was a jape; such things should be limited to verbal sparring only - he should have just taken the insult or insulted right back. In the case of making whaling illeagal, the victim's ethics say courtroom battles should stay courtroom battles, while the murderer is responding to a threat to his livelyhood that he doesn't know how to fight in the originating arena (the field of law), and so brings the fight to an arena he knows (guns and brute force). In the case of the tresspassing, perhaps the victim believed that the ground doesn't belong to us, we belong to "mother earth", thus there are no property rights, and the victim believs he should be able to go where he pleases, regardless of the five foot chain-link fence with the "no tresspassing" signs. Sure, FOR US, none of those would be sufficient cause to kill someone - but those are our ethics, our morality - not necessarily the murderer's. For him (or her, I suppose, but most convicted murderers are male), the victim was forcing a portion of the victim's ethics onto the murderer, causing the victim to be a threat, and thus someone to take action against.

Remember also, however, in the case of accomplished murder, that the murderer is not forcing his ethics on those who hunt down the murderer (after all, the murderer has already applied all the force, and the person forced is no longer in a position to be reactive) - so those hunting down the murderer are being proactive, not reactive.

Few people kill others without some provocation (it happens a lot for many forms of money-related killings such as muggings, and it happens with certain kinds of insanity (sadisim, sociopaths, psychopaths, et cetera), but with most murders (most solved murders, anyway) there is some form of provocation, even if the only one who views the "provocation" as such is the murderer) - who is reactive and who is proactive is often (if not always) a matter of perspective. Whose perspective gets enforced? Who choses which perspective? Why that perspective? Why that person? Any possible answer to such questions is very likely to ultimately end up being a case of one person/group of people imposing a portion of their ethics onto others - which you stated you are against.

That, and there are other issues: what do you do about a factory owner whose factory is putting out waste products that are slowly poisoning the ground water that people's wells draw on? He isn't forcing his ethics on anyone - he's not forcing anyone else to pollute; he's not preventing anyone else from containing the waste products of their factories - and yet his actions are potentially fatal to many other people.

I just have the odd habit of finding bizzare angles to look at things from, usually for purposes of analyzing the self-consistancy of a viewpoint.

[Simeron]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">*shrug* the murderer is being reactive if he's, say, avenging an insult to his family's honor, or if the victim was was going to get a law passed that would make the murderer's current livelyhood illegal (to pull a situation out of history: whale hunting), or if the victim was tresspassing, and such. In such cases, the victim was forcing a small portion of his/her ethics on the murderer: In the case of the insult, from the victim's POV, that wasn't a deadly insult, it was a jape; such things should be limited to verbal sparring only - he should have just taken the insult or insulted right back. In the case of making whaling illeagal, the victim's ethics say courtroom battles should stay courtroom battles, while the murderer is responding to a threat to his livelyhood that he doesn't know how to fight in the originating arena (the field of law), and so brings the fight to an arena he knows (guns and brute force). In the case of the tresspassing, perhaps the victim believed that the ground doesn't belong to us, we belong to "mother earth", thus there are no property rights, and the victim believs he should be able to go where he pleases, regardless of the five foot chain-link fence with the "no tresspassing" signs. Sure, FOR US, none of those would be sufficient cause to kill someone - but those are our ethics, our morality - not necessarily the murderer's. For him (or her, I suppose, but most convicted murderers are male), the victim was forcing a portion of the victim's ethics onto the murderer, causing the victim to be a threat, and thus someone to take action against.

Remember also, however, in the case of accomplished murder, that the murderer is not forcing his ethics on those who hunt down the murderer (after all, the murderer has already applied all the force, and the person forced is no longer in a position to be reactive) - so those hunting down the murderer are being proactive, not reactive.

Few people kill others without some provocation (it happens a lot for many forms of money-related killings such as muggings, and it happens with certain kinds of insanity (sadisim, sociopaths, psychopaths, et cetera), but with most murders (most solved murders, anyway) there is some form of provocation, even if the only one who views the "provocation" as such is the murderer) - who is reactive and who is proactive is often (if not always) a matter of perspective. Whose perspective gets enforced? Who choses which perspective? Why that perspective? Why that person? Any possible answer to such questions is very likely to ultimately end up being a case of one person/group of people imposing a portion of their ethics onto others - which you stated you are against.

That, and there are other issues: what do you do about a factory owner whose factory is putting out waste products that are slowly poisoning the ground water that people's wells draw on? He isn't forcing his ethics on anyone - he's not forcing anyone else to pollute; he's not preventing anyone else from containing the waste products of their factories - and yet his actions are potentially fatal to many other people.

I just have the odd habit of finding bizzare angles to look at things from, usually for purposes of analyzing the self-consistancy of a viewpoint. [/QB][/QUOTE]


******************************************


Oh, I don't mind at all, in fact I rather like doing the same thing myself *grins evilly*.

Now, back to what you were saying. Actually, in the case of the whale hunting the murder is in fact becoming the proactive part when they force a change in venue from courtroom to violence.

In the case of the tresspasser, they are being proactive by imposing thier view of "mother earth" on the person who owns the property.

In the case of someone that has murdered someone being hunted down for the murder, you are in fact being reactive because you are reacting to the fact they murdered someone though the arguement could be made that you are in fact being proactive in that you're attempting to stop them from murdering again thus imposing that on them.

In the case of the factory owner that is slowly poisoning the wells I have to disagree with the point you made that he is not imposing his ethics, or lack thereof, on the well owners as he is in fact doing just that by poisoning the wells. The method of poisoning does not matter so how he is choosing to do it doesn't matter be it through factory waste or dumping poison directly into the water table, which you could argue he is doing in the first place.

In the case of avenging the family honor, the murderer is being reactive indeed but being proactive in seeking out the one insulting the family honor and murdering them though, again, the arguement could be made they are justified just as someone would be seeking out the murderer in the first place.

But, the original premise was the current situation in the middle east which is clearly where some people are imposing thier personal views of Islam upon others and taking it to the extreme of punishing (including murdering) people in the name of the religion. (not faith of Muslim).

As a wise person once said, for almost every rule there will be some exception, even this one.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ May 26, 2004, 07:42: Message edited by: Simeron ]

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Simeron:
Oh, I don't mind at all, in fact I rather like doing the same thing myself *grins evilly*.

Now, back to what you were saying. Actually, in the case of the whale hunting the murder is in fact becoming the proactive part when they force a change in venue from courtroom to violence.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">A matter of perspective only; can you honestly expect, say, a 30-year old man, not rich but keeping a roof over his head and food on the table for himself and his family, without other prospects for a job, without the knoweledge to fight things out in court, without the money to hire someone with that knoweledge, to go into "battle" in the courts, completely outmatched, when the stakes are, for him, poverty and likely slow death for himself and his family by starvation? Or does it make more sense for him to kill the one pushing the law in indirect defense of his and his family's lives? Originally posted by Simeron:

In the case of the tresspasser, they are being proactive by imposing thier view of "mother earth" on the person who owns the property.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, the property owner is being proactive by willfully withholding the good and proper use of the land that belongs to no human being / is the collective property of all.

From the property owner's perspective, the property owner is being reactive, and the Earth worshipper is being proactive.

From the tresspasser's perspective, the tresspasser is being reactive and the ground ursurper is being proactive.

And yet, you picked a perspective, and said (paraphrasing here) "this man is in the right, this man is in the wrong, because this man is only preventing his own beliefs from being trampled under another's, while the other is the one trying to do the trampling" (pun recognized, but not intended) Originally posted by Simeron:

In the case of someone that has murdered someone being hunted down for the murder, you are in fact being reactive because you are reacting to the fact they murdered someone though the arguement could be made that you are in fact being proactive in that you're attempting to stop them from murdering again thus imposing that on them.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ah, but there is a secondary problem with hunting a murderer: What defines a person and thus a potential target for murder? What constitutes sufficient cause for killing a person? Both of those fall under either ethics or morals. What right have you to force your definitions of the two on another? If an eco-fanatic kills whalers because they are murderers (the "Whales are people too" perspective), should the fanatic be hunted for murder, or not? If a 1800 slave owner kills a slave because the slave tried to escape, should the slave owner be hunted for murder, or not? Does this change if the slave owner does not consider the slave a person, but property? Originally posted by Simeron:
In the case of the factory owner that is slowly poisoning the wells I have to disagree with the point you made that he is not imposing his ethics, or lack thereof, on the well owners as he is in fact doing just that by poisoning the wells. The method of poisoning does not matter so how he is choosing to do it doesn't matter be it through factory waste or dumping poison directly into the water table, which you could argue he is doing in the first place.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It could be so argued - and yet, it could also be argued that he is only dumping on property he owns - he believes he has the good and proper right to do as he wills with his own property. He is not necessarily aware he is doing any harm to others (as was the case with many of the earliest such cases). Besides, people should always take sensible percautions - you wouldn't blame a construction-site owner for the death of a pedestrian who ignored the "no tresspassing" fence and signs then got hit by falling debris on the construction site - not passing "no tresspassing" signs is a sensible percaution. It's also sensible to purify the water one drinks before drinking it - after all, many sources of water are contaminated by natural actions (e.g., animal wastse encouraging bacteria harmful to people) - would you hold nature accountable for that form of well poisoning? It all depends on the angle one looks at things from - how do you decide whose angle takes precidence? In so doing, you are forcing a portion of your beliefs on others. By what right do you do so? Originally posted by Simeron:
In the case of avenging the family honor, the murderer is being reactive indeed but being proactive in seeking out the one insulting the family honor and murdering them though, again, the arguement could be made they are justified just as someone would be seeking out the murderer in the first place.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Again, depending on perspective, he's doing either - the insulter is proactively attacking the insultee's honor, from the insultee's perspective, and thus the insultee is being reactive; the insultee is being proactive in searching out and killing the insulter over an "imagined slight" (from the insulter's perspective) and so the insulter is a completely innocent party. By what criteria should the two opposing perspectives be evaluated? By what right can such criteria be dictated? Originally posted by Simeron:

But, the original premise was the current situation in the middle east which is clearly where some people are imposing thier personal views of Islam upon others and taking it to the extreme of punishing (including murdering) people in the name of the religion. (not faith of Muslim).
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The examples are merely tools to illustrate a point where it is easier to illustrate - in many, many cases (possibly all) who is the proactive one is entierly a point of view. Even in the case of the extremeists killing for their faith have a perspective from which what they do is right.

Personally, I'm an absolutist - such extremists are murderers, and should be tried and executed. Of course, such extremeists are absolutists too, and two absolutists who disagree will always do so. No help for it. Neither side is willing to yield. War (of some form - not all wars involve shooting people) is essentially inevitable. Pity. Avenging mere insults with killing is horridly outdated; the insultee is a murderer, and needs to be tried on that basis. The property owner in the tresspassing case is using excessive force - he has a right to his property, but barring national-security level military installations or some such, he has no right to kill to prevent someone from walking there. Whales aren't people - the whalers are. It's possible to learn a new trade. Et cetera. I'm an absolutist - I don't need a debateable reason for my judgements. Everything lies on unproveable assumptions anyway, might as well assume everything. Sometimes this results in war. Sometimes war is necessary. No help for it.
Originally posted by Simeron:


As a wise person once said, for almost every rule there will be some exception, even this one.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yet, in picking which cases need exceptions, you are forcing one set of ethics on one or more parties (in an arbitrary manner, even) - in that manner, the position is self-contradictory. Absolutism is only self-contradictory if there are "rules" in the same set that contradict each other, or themselves - and even that is not an issue if you tack on priorities.

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by Mephisto:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
What has gone on in the past is up for change. Shrapnel is beginning to take an interest in the Boards. Everything has its pros and cons, including shrapnels interest. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I had not the impression that in the past when Richard surfed the board Shrapnel had no interest in the Boards. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well it now looks like our little planet has finally been noticed by the bigger one. We are now ripe for conquest.

Time to rally the dogs of war!

[Member 4148]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Mephisto:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
What has gone on in the past is up for change. Shrapnel is beginning to take an interest in the Boards. Everything has its pros and cons, including shrapnels interest. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I had not the impression that in the past when Richard surfed the board Shrapnel had no interest in the Boards. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well it now looks like our little planet has finally been noticed by the bigger one. We are now ripe for conquest.

Time to rally the dogs of war! </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">relacks teh rumurs were exagerated (http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=011789;p=1#000 000)

[rextorres]

I ignored this thread, but couldn't resist after reading another thread - and it leads me to one question. Am I lazy or does anyone else have trouble getting through a post that's more than 5 or 6 paragraphs long?

[ May 30, 2004, 08:09: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by rextorres:
I ignored this thread, but couldn't resist after reading another thread - and it leads me to one question. Am I lazy or does anyone else have trouble getting through a post that's more than 5 or 6 paragraphs long? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Depends on the person; depends on the perspective. Many have trouble with a long post in which they don't have any particular interest. Many have no trouble with a long post in which they do have a particular interest. E.g., I don't really expect you to get all the way through mine and Simeron's debate - I might expect you would hit the highlights (first & Last few paragraphs of each post and/or first & Last few sentences of each paragraph [or some such]), but I don't honestly expect you to read the whole thing, unless you were just dying to contradict / affirm / support a point, and even then, I'd really only expect you to read enough of it to address that particular point - while I have no trouble at all with it, being one of the two involved in the debate (still waiting for Simeron's response).

[Atrocities]

Damn intel was wrong again! I will have to launch a congressional investigation into this! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif