Michael Moores' F 9/11... will you see it?
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 3, 2004 20:30
VIEWED: 28912
PAGE 10 of 14
Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:Quote:
I can "get off" calling it a work of fiction because I've read a history book. The bible was *not* written by god, it *was written by man*, period. History *will* back me up on this one. That being said I will state that it *is* a wonderful book to learn values life lessons, *but*, one must take the prejudices out as there are many in there. But, that is another issue. I will refer you to "Why Christianity Must Change or Die" by Bishop John Shelby Spong.
Sorry, I've never understood the Bible to be written by God, nor have I understood the claim to be such. The Gospel according to Paul, Letters to the Corinthians, etc... I think the question you should be asking yourself is if you can prove these men weren't influenced by God, (which of course you can not, just as one can't prove that they were).
I shouldn't be asking myself any question as I've already done so and have come to some conclusions, some of which I've shared.
Perhaps you should look into the *historical* making of the bible before you ask me to ask myself questions. I think you'll be quite suprised at how much BS actually went on in the making of that book. ie There are things you will find throughout history which make you "point" moot.
*sigh* back to work
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, can you then explain to me where in the Bible it says it was written by God's own hand?
I have understood it to be written by those influenced by God, but nothing more then that.
I don't care, I'm still free.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
Okay, can you then explain to me where in the Bible it says it was written by God's own hand?
I have understood it to be written by those influenced by God, but nothing more then that.
I don't care, I'm still free.
Why do you still harp on this one point. I never said that it itself stated that it was written by god. Though you'd be surprised how many people claim it. I'll now reference myself when I said I wanted to head people off at the pass before that happened. Let it go!
And your other statement is highly debatable as well you know.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
Okay, can you then explain to me where in the Bible it says it was written by God's own hand?
I have understood it to be written by those influenced by God, but nothing more then that.
I don't care, I'm still free.
Why do you still harp on this one point. I never said that it itself stated that it was written by god. Though you'd be surprised how many people claim it. I'll now reference myself when I said I wanted to head people off at the pass before that happened. Let it go!
And your other statement is highly debatable as well you know.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
Sorry, but let me see if I understand you correctly.
You can say its fiction because it isn't written directly by God?
Therfore, using your logic, all man's works must be fiction because it isn't written by God.
(I am sorry if I am harping, just trying to understand what, exactly, you are saying.)
My other statement isn't highly debatable at all. Those that I have talked to that believe the Bible to be gospel truth, have said to me that it was written by men that they believe were influenced by God. I don't know how you can debate what they believe, but meh.
As far as heading people off at the pass, what does that have to do with whether or not the Bible is fiction? If absolutely nothing else religion is a series of philosophies, no more crazy then many other *isms* out there.
Sorry, I don't want to piss you off or anything, just not really understanding your points.
I don't care, I'm still free.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Jasonzz- I saw the movie, and having seen two of his other films I can tell you it's very different from his previous films. For example "Bowling for Columbine" was a meandering movie with some interesting ideas (the culture of fear, profitability of gun-making, race relations in the USA, the influence of our arms industry) not really tied together or explored in any significant way.
"F 9-11" is a focused film, the content is meaningful, the quotes are NOT taken out of context. I saw only perhaps five minutes that I thought were trivial.
I strongly suggest that you see it if you haven't already. You can't possibly judge this film based on his previous work. I simply won't accept any second-hand opnions about this movie.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Jasonzz- I saw the movie, and having seen two of his other films I can tell you it's very different from his previous films. For example "Bowling for Columbine" was a meandering movie with some interesting ideas (the culture of fear, profitability of gun-making, race relations in the USA, the influence of our arms industry) not really tied together or explored in any significant way.
"F 9-11" is a focused film, the content is meaningful, the quotes are NOT taken out of context. I saw only perhaps five minutes that I thought were trivial.
I strongly suggest that you see it if you haven't already. You can't possibly judge this film based on his previous work. I simply won't accept any second-hand opnions about this movie.
Like I said *way way* before. I'll likely see it: when I absolutely have ran out of interesting things to do, but that will prolly be when it's rotting in the bottom of the $0.79 bin.
That's fine that you opin'ed/believed that it's focused, is different from what he has done before, and is worthwhile. And In absence of evidence of a through and convincing review that points to otherwise, I am inclined and happened to believe that it's not. I don't think any of the his other films were that focused or meandering either, they were just all a mish-mash of entertaining tidbits all strung together to take out-of-context quotes, manipulating historical timelines and bash certain figures and harass otherwise good honest people and make them look like asses.
Again like I said, nothing that I have read in the reviews so far gives me confidence that he is using anything other than his normal modus operanti as I've outlined above. If you can give me a more through, convincing review that he is not using that same bushwacking tactics as I've seen in his other films. I might change my mind yet. But to be fair, if either you or anyone else who have seen this film (and at least 2 of his other works) and can point out either similarities or big deviations from what MM normally does. Please keep posting.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Why do you still harp on this one point. I never said that it itself stated that it was written by god. Though you'd be surprised how many people claim it. I'll now reference myself when I said I wanted to head people off at the pass before that happened. Let it go!
And your other statement is highly debatable as well you know.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
Sorry, but let me see if I understand you correctly.
You can say its fiction because it isn't written directly by God?
Therfore, using your logic, all man's works must be fiction because it isn't written by God.
No, I say that it's a work of fiction because it doesn't depict actual historical events. Some may argue that it is based on historical events, but, we all have seen movies that have been based on actual events haven't we. They were changed so much so that they on resembled the original on some superficial level. Also, give the fact that the first book was written 40-50 years *after the death of Jesus* makes the likelyness of its acuracy questionable at best. ie Let's play telephone with 40 people and see how the story changes, never mind over 40 years. See the Spong book above for more details about this book. Never mind the manipulation that its undergone.
Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
My other statement isn't highly debatable at all. Those that I have talked to that believe the Bible to be gospel truth, have said to me that it was written by men that they believe were influenced by God. I don't know how you can debate what they believe, but meh.
Then if it isn't highly debatable, show me the proof that it was influenced by god. You can't and neither can I = matter of opinion/belief = highly debatable.
Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
As far as heading people off at the pass, what does that have to do with whether or not the Bible is fiction?
Works of fiction can't be used to support an argument. Well, at least in this case because of the supposedly secular society we live in. It's called seperation of church and state.
Perhaps you should look back at my previous post to get this in context.
I'm too tired right now to continue. If you want to continue this send me a message through the message function at my firefly page. I think that this is too far OT to continue here (let's spare everyone else).
http://www.fireflyfans.net/showprofile.asp?un=SigmaNunki
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We will just agree to disagree then. I think the Bible has shown a remarkable ability to remain "true" to itself throughout the years, (nevermind the prunings here and there) so I can't say I agree with your telephone comment, (people dedicated their entire life to the transcription and replication of the Bible for hundreds, if not thousands of years).
But, as you said, that is fairly OT, nor is it something I am too inclined to discuss, (I am fairly apathetic about the entire thing).
I don't care, I'm still free.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
We will just agree to disagree then. I think the Bible has shown a remarkable ability to remain "true" to itself throughout the years, (nevermind the prunings here and there) so I can't say I agree with your telephone comment, (people dedicated their entire life to the transcription and replication of the Bible for hundreds, if not thousands of years).
But, as you said, that is fairly OT, nor is it something I am too inclined to discuss, (I am fairly apathetic about the entire thing).
I don't care, I'm still free.
Well then, in all seriousness, I think you should take a closer look at how that book was actually historically created if you are to have an informed opinion on it. I believe that you'll be surprised with what you find.
But, my knowledge into this has lead me to certain conclusions and I'll post some them up here as a - hopefully - last post on this topic.
The bible *is* fiction. I will refer those who with to read more about it to Bishop John Spong's book (re: previous post). He has also written many others as well for those who care to look them up.
I'll also note where this discussion usually gets clouded. I'm *not* taking belief into account here, I'm only looking at history. People can *believe* what they want and clearly with this book many people have taken that liberty. *But*, this doesn't change historical *fact*.
So, in the end, does it matter to the religious institutions whether it is a book of fiction or not. Well, it shouldn't. It doesn't matter if it isn't, it's what people *believe* when it comes to there *faith* that matters. If history has taught us anything, it'll be this, especially recent history (ie WMD, etc with regards to going to war with Iraq).
EDIT: For someone that's "fairly apathetic" about this, you sure discussed it alot.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
