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:
Here are some "facts" for that girl, Zack.
39 lashes with the rod was as good as a death sentence, you'd pass out long before that and the mid twenties would be enough to kill a man
now
39 lashes + the cat and nail tails...
oh and after that we can make Jesus who would have lost an amazing amount of blood carry the entire cross nearly all the way to Golgotha which would weigh over 100 lbs. Okay now maybe he could do it being the son of god and all, except for the fact that traditionally the Romans made prisoners only carry the cross beams like the thieves walking with Jesus were doing. But hey all the oil paintings show him carrying the whole thing so why not ignore that little detail in history.
mmm historically accurate
Good luck and hang in there!
For some added punch, just bring up the inconsistancy in the source material for the movie (4 different books of the bible). Now, if the source material is not completely consistant in itself, how can an interpretation of 4 different observations be correct? Example of this is Jesus and the transportation of his cross. In three of the four books, the author says Jesus carried his cross. However in the fourth one, the book of John, the author says that he carries Jesus' cross.
Not to mention the books of the bible that the catholic church deemed incorrect or fake, known as the Apocrypha. I have not read much of it, but I am relatively sure there is a different viewpoint in it as well.
Morals of this story: Freshmen are inherantly stupid, nothing from hollywood can be trusted, people have narrow views of religion (i.e. If they have not heart of it, it is not a religion), and if you really want to do a report of religion, get your information from the closest source of fact : the holy book of said religion, not a movie about the religion.
Keep rocking freshman face.
W. Gieser
Post a Comment
<< Home