Grindhouse

[inkelis]

Tolkien, I don't understand why you are attacking him. I have no idea how you got that he is ignorant of scripture, considering he didn't use personal oppinion. He simply gave you the verses. While i agree that there is alot of questionable content in the bible, i believe it's there to show how badly women where treated. I also strongly believe that it was not used as entertainment purposes, the same could not be said about mainstream media (IE. Movies, Tv shows.).

 

[Pelagrin]

How, exactly, am I ignorant of scripture? It is what it is. Problems arise when you start trying to read between the lines and infer things that aren't there. I'm a proponent of letting the text speak for itself.

Obviously you speaking out of both sides of your mouth because the cases that are presented are in many cases reading between the lines and taking scripture of context. My stating that you are ignorant of scripture is not a personal attack or name calling. It is mearly pointing out that you do not know the scripture. Your references clearly point out that fact.

I think you may be jumping the gun and attacking me unnecessarily. When I first started my post I had every intention of including not only the verses, but commentary as well. If you refer to my post, you will see the following at the bottom, "Last edited by Dark Virtue : 05-09-2007 at 08:54 PM. Reason: Edited to remove verse descriptions that may be offensive to some readers." Several times I've posted things that I felt weren't offensive, only to have certain individuals take offense. I thought I'd take the high road and do my best not to offend anyone from the get go. I'll just assume that you didn't read that part when you accused me of being cowardly.

I have not attacked you. I have attacked your position and the presentation of your argument. I am unapologetic in my statements and I stand by each of them. I maintain that your presentation is weak and cowardly.

As I said to Lazarus, every verse was not meant to serve as an example for one specific thing, they were merely meant to show examples of sexuality in the Bible. You can't compare the sexuality of the Bible to modern day television for two reasons: 1)They are completely different media. While you can use electronic devices to monitor/prevent what your kids watch on TV, there are no such items to prevent a minor from reading the Joy of Sex at your local library. Apples and oranges. 2)The Bible is composed of writings that are thousands of years old. Even comparing literature to literature, you can't compare the Bible to Harlequin romance novels. You have to take it all in context.

I take it from this statement that you agree with the arguments that we have been making all along then. Earlier in the thread you made the statement, "There are worse sexual acts in the Bible, yet you consider it appropriate for Christians to read?", as you referred to sexual content in the Bible versus that in movies. It's nice to see now that you have come to the understanding that the sexual content in the bible can not be compared to the sexual content in movies or even in the modern smut novels. I also appreciate that you now understand the importance of taking scripture in context which can clearly show that the verses that you present do not stand as worthly examples of sexual content being condoned or ordered by God.

Now if you'd like to discuss something SPECIFIC, I'd be more than happy to, but I suggest you tone down your attitude. You've called me a coward and called me ignorant. That, my friend, is a violation of the TOS, namely the parts that constitute "defamation", "slander", "insults" and "giving unsolicited negative interaction with, towards or upon another member". Not only that, but it was completely unwarranted.

Again, I state that I attack your position and the method of your presentation rather than you as a person. The manner that you presented your argument is cowardly and shows and ignorance of scripture. It is not however defaming you as a person, slandering you, insulting you, or giving unsolicited negative interaction. By you making the false claims, you have given the rest of us the permission to defend the Bible. That defense does include the right for us to point out the weaknesses and inaccuraces of your arguments.

Thanks and God bless!

 

[Pelagrin]

Tolkien, I don't understand why you are attacking him. I have no idea how you got that he is ignorant of scripture, considering he didn't use personal oppinion. He simply gave you the verses. While i agree that there is alot of questionable content in the bible, i believe it's there to show how badly women where treated. I also strongly believe that it was not used as entertainment purposes, the same could not be said about mainstream media (IE. Movies, Tv shows.).

Again, I have not attacked him. In reading his counter argment to what I wrote, it may seem that I did attack him, but because he said that I did. However if you go back and read my statements, you will see that I never once directly attacked him, only his position and presentation.

 

[tjguitarz]

*wonders if this thread is going to get locked*

 

[Lazarus]

*would be surprised if it was*

There's no reason for lockment that I can see.

inkelis, you said "While i agree that there is alot of questionable content in the bible, i believe it's there to show how badly women where treated."

You do? ...

 

[Dark Virtue]

Obviously you speaking out of both sides of your mouth because the cases that are presented are in many cases reading between the lines and taking scripture of context. My stating that you are ignorant of scripture is not a personal attack or name calling. It is mearly pointing out that you do not know the scripture. Your references clearly point out that fact.

Oh Tolkien. Although I could continue to argue with you, the facts are already laid out before not only you, but to everyone.

You've made it clear that you will believe what you want, regardless of what anyone says.

I have not attacked you. I have attacked your position and the presentation of your argument. I am unapologetic in my statements and I stand by each of them. I maintain that your presentation is weak and cowardly.

No sir. You have NOT attacked my position, you have attached me, PERSONALLY. Since you are unapologetic regarding your actions, I will let those in charge deal with you.

I take it from this statement that you agree with the arguments that we have been making all along then. Earlier in the thread you made the statement, "There are worse sexual acts in the Bible, yet you consider it appropriate for Christians to read?", as you referred to sexual content in the Bible versus that in movies. It's nice to see now that you have come to the understanding that the sexual content in the bible can not be compared to the sexual content in movies or even in the modern smut novels. I also appreciate that you now understand the importance of taking scripture in context which can clearly show that the verses that you present do not stand as worthly examples of sexual content being condoned or ordered by God.

To quote the Man in Black, "Truly you have a dizzying intellect".

Again, I state that I attack your position and the method of your presentation rather than you as a person. The manner that you presented your argument is cowardly and shows and ignorance of scripture. It is not however defaming you as a person, slandering you, insulting you, or giving unsolicited negative interaction. By you making the false claims, you have given the rest of us the permission to defend the Bible. That defense does include the right for us to point out the weaknesses and inaccuraces of your arguments.

As I said, I will let those in charge make that decision. In doing so, I will go on record as stating that I take umbrage to your claims against me.

Thanks and God bless!

 

[inkelis]

By "Questionable", i'm refering to the way that women were treated back then.

 

[Pelagrin]

No matter, the joy for me is seeing you contradict yourself.

There are worse sexual acts in the Bible, yet you consider it appropriate for Christians to read?

You can't compare the sexuality of the Bible to modern day television for two reasons: 1)They are completely different media. While you can use electronic devices to monitor/prevent what your kids watch on TV, there are no such items to prevent a minor from reading the Joy of Sex at your local library. Apples and oranges.

...I guess I should give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume that you changed your mind.

To quote the Man in Black, "Truly you have a dizzying intellect".

Sorry, I should have put my sarcasm in [SARCASM] blocks for the paragraph that you Man in Black addressed.

No sir. You have NOT attacked my position, you have attached me, PERSONALLY. Since you are unapologetic regarding your actions, I will let those in charge deal with you.

Actually I did attack your position and I don't recall attaching anything to you. Honestly, I don't feel personally attached at all. Sorry, I couldn't resist a bit of jesting.

Seriously though, I'm sorry that you "take umbrage" to my criticisms of the method of debate. However, please understand that just because you feel that I attacked you, it does not mean that I actually did. There was no malicious intent on my part despite your own personal feelings. I mearly stated my observations. Thankfully you are correct in that, "The facts are already laid out before not only you, but to everyone." If you once again read my statements, it is VERY clear that they were mearly personal observations of your argument's presentation.

Your arguments are weak and serve only to show your ignorance of scripture.

As I mentioned above, the statement is simply an observation. It is not necessarily true or untrue. If we all start walking on egg shells for fear of offending others, then none of us will be able to say anything. Now had I actually called you derogatory names, it would have been a different case entirely. I had a college professor that stated that he believed that a person taking offese to something simply showed a sense of insecurity on their part. Do with that what you will, it's his words not mine.

Oh Tolkien. Although I could continue to argue with you, the facts are already laid out before not only you, but to everyone.

You've made it clear that you will believe what you want, regardless of what anyone says.

Actually, the facts may be there, but your method makes your arguemt unclear. This is due to the fact that you posted your example verses in no particular order, and also the fact that you included your collection of verses as evidence for two separate arguments without stating which verses are intended each arguement. Had you posted the actual verses, the case would be different. I'd like to see you get away with turning in a paper in school or at work that simply directs you to a page number in a book. That is purely laughable. I'm pretty sure that it's safe to post a Bible verse on a Christian website.

I'll make it simple. Of the verses that you presented, which of them support this statement:

There are worse sexual acts in the Bible, yet you consider it appropriate for Christians to read?

Just so it's clear what I expect, your question was made specifically about this:

Sexual Content
Broken Sword pushes Moon, his pretty apprentice, to the floor and rips open her gown (we see only her face and shoulders) before having intercourse with her for the purpose of making his beloved, Flying Snow, jealous. (He knows she’s watching from outside the room.) There’s heavy breathing, moaning and sexual motions edited to avoid an R rating. Beyond its sexual nature, this is a loveless, vindictive act. Moon is devoted to her master, yet used and cast off as soon as Broken Sword has made his point to Flying Snow. It’s unclear whether Broken Sword and Flying Snow are married (they are referred to as “lovers”), but they share a bed, implying a sexual relationship. Elsewhere, there is a brief glimpse of a man’s buttocks as he changes clothes. And there's a reference to an affair between Sky and Flying Snow.

I would like for you to show which of your examples are more graphic than viewing the scenes described.

 

[Dark Virtue]

No matter, the joy for me is seeing you contradict yourself.

Tolkien, you are seeing what you want to see, even though it isn't there.

...I guess I should give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume that you changed your mind.

I haven't changed my mind because there isn't any reason to do so. Since you bring this up again at the end of your post, I'll explain it there.

Actually I did attack your position and I don't recall attaching anything to you. Honestly, I don't feel personally attached at all. Sorry, I couldn't resist a bit of jesting.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. Since there was at least one other person that responded the tone of your posts, maybe you should consider that you are actually wrong.

Seriously though, I'm sorry that you "take umbrage" to my criticisms of the method of debate. However, please understand that just because you feel that I attacked you, it does not mean that I actually did. There was no malicious intent on my part despite your own personal feelings. I mearly stated my observations. Thankfully you are correct in that, "The facts are already laid out before not only you, but to everyone." If you once again read my statements, it is VERY clear that they were mearly personal observations of your argument's presentation.

As I said before, others thought you were attacking as well. That should say something in and of itself.

Also, where is this "debate" thing coming from? This isn't a debate, it's a conversation. My responses weren't directed at one thing in particular or one person in particular. You, however, think my broad response was mean to satisfy one person with one particular topic in mine. It was not. As I said before, I'd be more than happy to discuss specifics, just so long as it is clear for everyone involved.

As I mentioned above, the statement is simply an observation. It is not necessarily true or untrue. If we all start walking on egg shells for fear of offending others, then none of us will be able to say anything. Now had I actually called you derogatory names, it would have been a different case entirely. I had a college professor that stated that he believed that a person taking offese to something simply showed a sense of insecurity on their part. Do with that what you will, it's his words not mine.

Tolkien, as the oppositional minority on this board, I have learned that not only do I have to follow the rules here, I have to follow them better than everyone else. So I worry more about offending others than others do about offending me. As I have stated several times already, if other people were worried about you attacking me, then your attitude isn't as pure as you may think it is.

I'm also hesitant to keep rehashing this subject because it has nothing to do with the thread and I don't want to get it locked.

Actually, the facts may be there, but your method makes your arguemt unclear. This is due to the fact that you posted your example verses in no particular order, and also the fact that you included your collection of verses as evidence for two separate arguments without stating which verses are intended each arguement. Had you posted the actual verses, the case would be different. I'd like to see you get away with turning in a paper in school or at work that simply directs you to a page number in a book. That is purely laughable. I'm pretty sure that it's safe to post a Bible verse on a Christian website.

Again, your problem is in thinking that I am taking part in some strict debate. You are raising my conversation to a level that it wasn't intended for, which is why you are having so many problems with what I wrote and how I wrote it.

While you may not not think there are any problems with posting Bible verses of a sexual nature, I can assure you that if I had not edited my post and left my descriptions intact, somebody would have been offended. I shouldn't have to apologize for being cautious and not wanting anyone to be offended.

I'll make it simple. Of the verses that you presented, which of them support this statement:

Finally, back on topic...before I can answer that, I need you to clarify the next statement...

I would like for you to show which of your examples are more graphic than viewing the scenes described.

It sounds like you are assuming that I suggested that the Bible's portrayals of sexuality were presented in a more graphic way than in modern media. If so, then you misinterpreted my statement. I said (as you quoted yourself), "There are worse sexual acts in the Bible, yet you consider it appropriate for Christians to read?"

This statement doesn't say, imply, nor infer, how the sexual acts were presented, but rather that they were included in the Bible at all.

I just want to make sure we're all on the same page before I proceed.

 

[Durruck]

I don't see the problem, I'm not doing anything that they are in the movie, and I can't think of a time when I actually look at the screen during a scene with nudity in it, by choice might I add. Stop harping on me about going to see a movie, I go to be entertained, nothing else. And to tell the truth, most Christian movies aren't that good, its just a fact.

It's your mouth man, you can haul coal in it if you want.

The others in the thread weren't condemning you, they were just pointing out the reasons why this movie isn't a good choice for Christians to watch.

I understand where you're coming from. I watched 300 after I knew about the nudity in it. I didn't watch it because of the nudity. In fact, I thought it was added in poor taste. I also thought the part about oracles, the king's wife submitting to the dirty politician, and other similar things (while providing back story) were not needed to get across the point about the 300 men that fought so fiercely. I watched 300 for the entertainment value of the other 2 hours of the movie.

As for the others in the thread, I'll post specifically to DV, because I truly do admire your debating ability, generally. However, this time, I think that you're doing the same thing that you accuse others of in debates about the existence of God. You're doing a quick search online, cut-and-pasting, and there have been misrepresentations of what you've shown.

The part about the 184 sexual references notated in the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Yes, the Bible talks about sex. There are entire chapters that talk about what you should not do. Listing those chapters as evidence is really a bad idea. You're presenting the case against your own argument. You also quickly turned the debate into a personal battle - Tolkien does clearly state that he was attacking your information, not you as a person. But I find it ironic that you also made the statement (even quoting a song) about his intellect being dizzying. You move the argument away from the topic at hand and bang on his intelligence.

As for your direct arguments:

There are worse sexual acts in the Bible, yet you consider it appropriate for Christians to read?

Yes, the Bible only mentions those acts, through stating that they are immoral and that God will punish the people that did those acts. Sodom & Gomorrah - we don't read exactly what those people did wrong, but we see that they did something so horrible that God destroyed the entire towns, save one family. This is just showing that we will be judged by our actions.

The references to Lot, having sexual relations with his daughters (he was drunk, they seduced him. They all 3 sinned, regardless). Those are shown for historical reference. God condemned the sons of Lot's daugthers. One sub-family was the Moabites - time and time again the Bible tells us that the Moabites were shameful, horrible, wicked people. They came from an incestuous family. If God just said that they were bad people but never explained why, it'd just be "family profiling". God provides the specific examples of why the people are judged as they are. The Bible didn't tell us anything specific about the sexual acts...just that they happened. There is a huge difference between knowing something happened and watching what Tarentino put in the Grindhouse.

Hmm..what use is a set of rules or a subjective code of morality dictated by God if, in the end, everyone thinks it's ok to "decide for themselves"? I never understood that.

Again, God didn't condone these actions. It's not like it's somehow okay for incest to occur just because God didn't kill Lot and his children on the spot. You talk about others in the thread reading into passages, yet you do the same here. You read way more into it than what is actually put on the page. Consider us all unruly kids. We've been told the rules, and yet some will disobey. That doesn't mean the rules don't still apply... it means some kids just didn't listen.

Not all...err...questionable...sexual acts in the Bible are condemned. That was my point. To use your example of David...he committed some pretty horrible acts, but he is still described as a "man after God's own heart."

He may have been a man after God's own heart, but he was still a man, nonetheless. He was a sinner, just like you and me. His heart was in the right place, but he still screwed up. There's only One that the Bible claims never sinned.

Included are some examples that were not only condoned, but ORDERED by God.

Someone beat me to the punch - some of the things you listed were examples of "taking the women"... which comes down to a translation issue. Almost every translation from KJB on indicate that this "taking" was in the form of property - women as slaves, cattle as food, etc.

Most of the places you list are things like Lev 20:10-11... things where God is establishing a moral code...if you do (pick an action...you listed several of them) than you pay the price of death. There are specific places where some of the crimes, while bad, just make you pay a lesser price. They're all still sins. they're all still wrong.

The condoned actions in Deuteronomy, is God ordering his people to take the land that He promised them, driving out the wicked, the idolaters, the followers of false gods. God ordered the destruction of those people, His Judgment and Wrath. Yes, God could have done it directly, but which is more effective...walking into an area and finding no people... or being told to go into an area and destroy EVERYTHING that is wicked, burn everything, keep no crops/slaves/buildings? If you're trying to get across the message to a kid that something is wrong, if they don't understand after being told...let the kid see the action and how it's punished. Oftentimes, fear of punishment is a bigger motivator than potential reward. We're just dumb like that sometimes. If you don't agree, then I ask why you show up to work on time everyday? Sure, if you could just stay a few minutes later to make up the lost time, it wouldn't be a big deal. But if your options are show up on time or be fired, you'll figure out quick that showing up on time is important.

Bah, out of time. I'll finish later.

 

[Pelagrin]

Tolkien, you are seeing what you want to see, even though it isn't there.

Nice way of attempting to dodge the bullet. In the context of the thread, the contradiction is clear.

I haven't changed my mind because there isn't any reason to do so. Since you bring this up again at the end of your post, I'll explain it there.

Oops, did I forget those [sarcasm] tags again?

Whatever helps you sleep at night. Since there was at least one other person that responded the tone of your posts, maybe you should consider that you are actually wrong.

As I said before, others thought you were attacking as well. That should say something in and of itself.
...
...
...
Tolkien, as the oppositional minority on this board, I have learned that not only do I have to follow the rules here, I have to follow them better than everyone else. So I worry more about offending others than others do about offending me. As I have stated several times already, if other people were worried about you attacking me, then your attitude isn't as pure as you may think it is.

I'm also hesitant to keep rehashing this subject because it has nothing to do with the thread and I don't want to get it locked.

If you look carefully, you will see that it specifically was ONE other person. I explained my case and nothing else was said about it from that person or anyone else. To quote you, "That should say something in and of itself."

Also, where is this "debate" thing coming from? This isn't a debate, it's a conversation.
...
...
...
Again, your problem is in thinking that I am taking part in some strict debate. You are raising my conversation to a level that it wasn't intended for, which is why you are having so many problems with what I wrote and how I wrote it.

Do you even know what a debate is? I think you're confusing debate with arguement. A debate is essentially a conversation with two opposing points of view. I clearly disagree with you and you clearly disagree with just about everyone else here. It's not a bad thing to debate though. Debates challenge a person to think analytically. I commend you for being brave enough to post here where you are clearly outnumbered in your opinions.

My responses weren't directed at one thing in particular or one person in particular. You, however, think my broad response was mean to satisfy one person with one particular topic in mine. It was not. As I said before, I'd be more than happy to discuss specifics, just so long as it is clear for everyone involved.

Did you even bother to read my post before replying??? I know that you were not responding solely to me and that was one of my key arguements. You responded to me and Lazarus at the same time in the same post without being clear which examples were intended for which point. You need to focus your case.

While you may not not think there are any problems with posting Bible verses of a sexual nature, I can assure you that if I had not edited my post and left my descriptions intact, somebody would have been offended. I shouldn't have to apologize for being cautious and not wanting anyone to be offended.

Again, I ask you to show me anyone in school or at a job that can get away with just giving references. You're the one that made the claim that there are worse things in the Bible. I mearly ask that you provide evidence. It is a weak copout to say that you are able to support your statements, but you decline from doing so because you are afraid of offending someone. Honestly, it sounds like a cowardly excuse.

Finally, back on topic...before I can answer that, I need you to clarify the next statement...

What is there to clarify??? It's pretty clear and straightforward. Read my comments below and see if it makes a little more sense.

It sounds like you are assuming that I suggested that the Bible's portrayals of sexuality were presented in a more graphic way than in modern media. If so, then you misinterpreted my statement. I said (as you quoted yourself), "There are worse sexual acts in the Bible, yet you consider it appropriate for Christians to read?"

This statement doesn't say, imply, nor infer, how the sexual acts were presented, but rather that they were included in the Bible at all.

That is not true. The context of your post removes the need for assumption. The message where you posed your question was talking specifically about modern media. In fact, the entire thread up to that point is addressing modern media. Due to the context of where your question was posted combined with the phrasing, the intent appears to compare sexual content in the bible with modern media. If that was not your intent, then please rephrase your question.

I just want to make sure we're all on the same page before I proceed.

No problem there, it's important to make sure that we're on the same page.