Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sonerohi]

The only part I don't like about being Catholic is trying to find spots in the Bible. I need one that is alphabetical.

[Leafsnail]

Jesus does tell followers to look at the old testament, though.  Remove it and all that would cease to make sense.

[sonerohi]

I believe the spirit of it was that Jesus was using something they were familiar with to get his point across. If you were a McDonalds worker your whole life and I had to use McDonalds analogies to get my point across, does that mean I'm starting the church of McDonalds?

[Leafsnail]

Not really - he refers to the old scriptures in order to resist the temptations of the devil.  That doesn't mean he's telling his followers to follow it all, but he still thought it to be important.

[Euld]

Fair share?
Its a pretty violent anthology.

And yet stereotypical conservative christian moral guardians try to censor violence, yet the Bible is one of the bloodiest books out there. The irony is delicious. 

Bugs me when Christians do that too.  I was admitedly peeved about the violent scene in Where the Wild Things Are, but more because I thought it was unnecesary.  And I'm not a big fan of slasher movies for the same reason.  I'm not bothered when it's amusingly over the top (like Mortal Kombat) or when it's necessary for the (good) story or is actually factual about the events in question.  Although it wouldn't hurt to steer young children away from the really awful stuff for now.

[Neruz]

Fair share?
Its a pretty violent anthology.

And yet stereotypical conservative christian moral guardians try to censor violence, yet the Bible is one of the bloodiest books out there. The irony is delicious. 

Bugs me when Christians do that too.  I was admitedly peeved about the violent scene in Where the Wild Things Are, but more because I thought it was unnecesary.  And I'm not a big fan of slasher movies for the same reason.  I'm not bothered when it's amusingly over the top (like Mortal Kombat) or when it's necessary for the (good) story or is actually factual about the events in question.  Although it wouldn't hurt to steer young children away from the really awful stuff for now.

Apparantly your stereotypical American Christians would rather see a graphically severed human head than an uncovered breast. They can't hate violence that much.

[Leafsnail]

Bloody violence is a part of everyday life while sex is an abominable sin that you should never commit.  Duh.

Yeah, I have trouble tracing the logic too :/.

[sonerohi]

Fair share?
Its a pretty violent anthology.

And yet stereotypical conservative christian moral guardians try to censor violence, yet the Bible is one of the bloodiest books out there. The irony is delicious. 

Bugs me when Christians do that too.  I was admitedly peeved about the violent scene in Where the Wild Things Are, but more because I thought it was unnecesary.  And I'm not a big fan of slasher movies for the same reason.  I'm not bothered when it's amusingly over the top (like Mortal Kombat) or when it's necessary for the (good) story or is actually factual about the events in question.  Although it wouldn't hurt to steer young children away from the really awful stuff for now.

Dude. I grew up on Where The Wild Things Are. Never speak about the movie unless it is to shoot rainbows out of your mouth  .

[MrWiggles]

Fair share?
Its a pretty violent anthology.

And yet stereotypical conservative christian moral guardians try to censor violence, yet the Bible is one of the bloodiest books out there. The irony is delicious. 

Bugs me when Christians do that too.  I was admitedly peeved about the violent scene in Where the Wild Things Are, but more because I thought it was unnecesary.  And I'm not a big fan of slasher movies for the same reason.  I'm not bothered when it's amusingly over the top (like Mortal Kombat) or when it's necessary for the (good) story or is actually factual about the events in question.  Although it wouldn't hurt to steer young children away from the really awful stuff for now.

How was it not nessicary? Its a dark fantasy. They are monsters, who can be physically aggressive. It was intense but a good rush.

[Jude]

Jesus was Jewish, very Jewish, and his connection and references to Jewish scripture aren't just incidental. His whole role as "Messiah" (which means "anointed one" - in other words, the king of Judah - same title that was used for the kings starting at the very beginning, with Saul) is based on Jewish tradition.

[Euld]

How was it not nessicary? Its a dark fantasy. They are monsters, who can be physically aggressive. It was intense but a good rush.

*shoots rainbows*
I did not like that movie.  Sure, it was very necessary for it to be different than the book, but I didn't like what they added in.  We got to watch emo monsters with human names illustrate the futility of reconcilliation and establishing lasting relationships.  Then the child goes home to his divorced home, stressed out mom, she falls asleep while he eats cake and everything is better.  It was like watching the new Star Trek, where they kill off the Kirk's dad and Spock's mom for no forseeable reason besides apparently nobody can associate with having two parents (or their original parents) anymore.  The random violence, the blood, and the immediate response from the victim, "that was my favorite arm!" was like a kick between the legs.

[Cheeetar]

'That was my favourite arm' immediately reminded me of Stubbs the Zombie.

[MrWiggles]

How was it not nessicary? Its a dark fantasy. They are monsters, who can be physically aggressive. It was intense but a good rush.

*shoots rainbows*
I did not like that movie.  Sure, it was very necessary for it to be different than the book, but I didn't like what they added in.  We got to watch emo monsters with human names illustrate the futility of reconcilliation and establishing lasting relationships.  Then the child goes home to his divorced home, stressed out mom, she falls asleep while he eats cake and everything is better.  It was like watching the new Star Trek, where they kill off the Kirk's dad and Spock's mom for no forseeable reason besides apparently nobody can associate with having two parents (or their original parents) anymore.  The random violence, the blood, and the immediate response from the victim, "that was my favorite arm!" was like a kick between the legs.

That was my favorite arm line was black humor. Which isn't everyone cup of tea. I liked it.
--

Also the no parent thing is as old as story telling. Romulus and Remus were both orphans, raised by wolves who founded Rome. Gilgamesh, one of the oldest stories record by man had paternal tragedy. Luke Skywalker lost two sets of parents, as did Leih. Batman lost his parents. Several incarnation of Superman has his lost as well. Spider-man doesnt have his parents and lost his grand father.

 There also the literal scores of media that I can list from tvtropes with parental tragedy.

It gets used for two things; Happy Parents are boring to hear about. If there was nothing of interest then it should be drooped, and is most of the time.

Second, its a relatable tragedy. Almost everyone has parents, and can sympathize with the lost. It makes the character understandable. It also gives the writer a large range to where to take the character because of the lost.

In star trek, its used for Kirk in the traditional sense of great tragedy and motivator, for spock mom, it suppose to make the genocidal horific event relatable to the audience, as a lost of several hundred million, and probably billions is beyond comprehension. Through spock we get to experience the lost of the planet through his lost of his mother. We see this thing gets used with the first star wars movie with Leih awestruck at the loss of alderian.

[Euld]

I'm not disputing the use of single parents or lack of parents in the entire literary world, I'm disputing its use in Where the Wild Things Are and the new Star Trek.  This trope fits those examples you listed because the trope occurs naturally through the circumstances of the story.  I haven't read R&R or Gilgamesh, but Star Wars is an excellent example.  Luke's aunt and uncle died because they bought the driods the stormtroopers were after, it was a natural consequence of the events.  Wild Things and Star Trek did not have natural, logical events to support the trope, thus I conclude the authors simply forced them into the story to serve a function that was unnecessary.  Divorce and dysfunctional relationships (as I recall) we not in the original book, why would it suddenly be in the movie?  Kirk's father and Spock's mother did not need to die; in the normal timeline where Kirk's father is alive, Kirk is in Starfleet.  In the movie, they kill off his father to motivate him to do what he was going to end up doing anyway.  Spock's mother did not need to die,[insert need for sleep here. zzzzzz...]
edit: the deaths of billions of people should have been enough, it was enough for us in Star Wars with Aldaraan.  The way she was killed was very annoying too, they suddenly make up a rule that you have to hold still while being transported, almost makes sense, but that apparently flaw in the transporter system reared its ugly head to kill Spock's mother then never showed up again.  Very suspicious.

[darkflagrance]

Actually, the gnostic gospel was created by a group with fundamentally different beliefs from Christianity that wanted to take advantage of the Jesus craze. Gnostic tradition predates the existence of Christianity.

This is fundementally disingenuous. The fundemental idea of gnosticism is that some individuals experience Gnosis or an epiphany about the nature of the Divine. Thus, there can be jewish gnosticism and buddhist gnosticism or even atheistic gnosticism. The fact that gnosticism predates christianity is not at all weird or an arguement against gnostic traditions of christianity. Dismissing gnosticism as being unchristian and a cynical attempt to "take advantage of the Jesus craze" is as offensive as it is inaccurate.

It probably wasn't cynical; there were a lot of contradictions between what Christianity seemed to teach and what Eastern mysticism and Platonic philosophy held to be true. Gnostic variations on Christianity are the natural result of synthesis.

However, gnosticism is about knowledge - knowledge about a world that is inherently evil and fallen - a shadow of a true perfect one, and positing a different origin story from Christianity, that gives an entirely different significance for why Christ came to Earth. Even if the figure of Jesus is the same, the belief as to their meaning is different.

It is like a modern religion making out Thor to be the god of static electricity. Same name, similar role, but entirely different meaning.

I'm actually deeply interested in gnosticism and find the idea of evil being the result of a flawed creator very compelling.