Passion
when choosing a film that has had an impact on culture, someone in my group says lets not do Passion of the Christ. i say i agree, that i dont like it and that its fucking retarded, as well as not historically accurate. another girl asks what basis i have for saying its not accurate. i say well, ive taken a religion course or two and that ive studied ancient history. she says okay, asks what religion i am. i shrug and say pick a god. she then rants at me saying that she is not comfortable with me giving opinion and disguising as fact.
first off, i think she misinterpreted my shrug and response to mean that im atheist. thats not the case. i said pick a god. i have my own set of beliefs, they just dont fit with organised religion.
second, since when is "i dont like it", and "fucking retarded" a fact?
third, its not historically accurate, its propoganda.
we argue for a time, she gets more and more upset. i then ask if she would relent that its not canon; as in, that it isnt sanctioned by any holy or divine or religious authority. she says yes. i then say, based on mel gibson's desire to make a historically accurate movie, would she then say that he has affirmed that. she says yes.
last time i checked, showing the devil tempt judas in the garden and showing satan scream when christ dies isnt historically accurate. it may be argued that its "theologically accurate" is you so chose to do that, but its far from being historically accurate. second we dont know the relations between any of the characters other than from the Bible, which isnt necessarily the most trustworthy source of information by itself. therefore, if a movie does not meet a directors criteria or mission he set out to meet, then would that in fact, say that it is a bad movie?
fucking people. i just dont understand. she ended the arguement by saying i just dont think you should be saying things like that that are based on beliefs. i thought that i was stating facts disguised as beliefs and that was her main arguement? that i shoulndt do that, now i cant do that because it steps on her toes, faith-wise.
her arguements step on my toes faith-wise as well. why am i not supposed to say anything cos she doesnt agree with it based in her religion when she is able to wave her beliefs in my face? what makes her arguement more valid, when mine also has elements in my faith?
i just dont understand why i cant say something and she is able to rub in my face, constantly, what she believes in, while i cant make a statement based on my own.
fucking people. maybe im just bitter and unnecessarily angry. on top of it, i think she may report me to bohart as using misinformation or somesuch thing. i dont fucking care anymore either is the damndest thing. i feel justified in what i said, just as she must feel justified.
anyway, thats all. im just fucking angry and pissed. altho i am happy to have argued my way out of her arguement. i mean fuck, just cos youre a freshman and mommy and daddy and pastor bill have taught you something, doesnt mean its right. maybe she should try thinking a little rather than accepting everything fed to her.
fuck.
z out
first off, i think she misinterpreted my shrug and response to mean that im atheist. thats not the case. i said pick a god. i have my own set of beliefs, they just dont fit with organised religion.
second, since when is "i dont like it", and "fucking retarded" a fact?
third, its not historically accurate, its propoganda.
we argue for a time, she gets more and more upset. i then ask if she would relent that its not canon; as in, that it isnt sanctioned by any holy or divine or religious authority. she says yes. i then say, based on mel gibson's desire to make a historically accurate movie, would she then say that he has affirmed that. she says yes.
last time i checked, showing the devil tempt judas in the garden and showing satan scream when christ dies isnt historically accurate. it may be argued that its "theologically accurate" is you so chose to do that, but its far from being historically accurate. second we dont know the relations between any of the characters other than from the Bible, which isnt necessarily the most trustworthy source of information by itself. therefore, if a movie does not meet a directors criteria or mission he set out to meet, then would that in fact, say that it is a bad movie?
fucking people. i just dont understand. she ended the arguement by saying i just dont think you should be saying things like that that are based on beliefs. i thought that i was stating facts disguised as beliefs and that was her main arguement? that i shoulndt do that, now i cant do that because it steps on her toes, faith-wise.
her arguements step on my toes faith-wise as well. why am i not supposed to say anything cos she doesnt agree with it based in her religion when she is able to wave her beliefs in my face? what makes her arguement more valid, when mine also has elements in my faith?
i just dont understand why i cant say something and she is able to rub in my face, constantly, what she believes in, while i cant make a statement based on my own.
fucking people. maybe im just bitter and unnecessarily angry. on top of it, i think she may report me to bohart as using misinformation or somesuch thing. i dont fucking care anymore either is the damndest thing. i feel justified in what i said, just as she must feel justified.
anyway, thats all. im just fucking angry and pissed. altho i am happy to have argued my way out of her arguement. i mean fuck, just cos youre a freshman and mommy and daddy and pastor bill have taught you something, doesnt mean its right. maybe she should try thinking a little rather than accepting everything fed to her.
fuck.
z out
posted by OOKKI-SAN! at 1:49 PM
2 comments
