276

(373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Sam F wrote:
Dorkman wrote:

Also, presupposing the God of the Bible exists and is the one who wrote the Bible -- well, that's hardly an unbiased source, is it? It's more than a little plausible it's loaded up with more than a little pro-Yahweh propaganda, don'tcha think? I mean, you say God's wrath is justified because we're wicked, but if God's the one who wrote that -- well, he would say that, wouldn't he?

If you don't accept His existence upfront then any argument about whether or not He is a good God is irrelevant. An argument like that always assumes the truth of the Bible, no matter which side of it you're on.

It doesn't, really. I just made an argument which accepts that particular God exists without assuming the Bible is true. They aren't mutually necessary points of order.

You're correct that if I don't accept the Bible's word that this God exists I have no reason at all to do so, but I was granting the point for the sake of argument.

Sam F wrote:

My point was that if you believe the Bible is true you have every reason to praise God.

I know that was your point. My point is I don't agree. It is, after all, possible to believe some parts of the Bible and not others, as even Christians do. I don't see it as any different to accept the events but not God's self-serving justifications for them.

This is all academic, of course, as I obviously don't believe the Bible is truer than any other fantasy story.

277

(373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

fireproof78 wrote:

Well, the extrabiblical, and biblical evidence, is more compelling and complete, and within a shorter frame of time than many other historical documents. Specifically, the New Testament has had document copies found within 90 years of the events described.

There's like a billion copies of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows around and those events took place in 1998. Is this evidence of their factual nature?

(And 90 years later is a long damn time to have been written by eyewitnesses who would've been in their 20s or 30s at the time of the events!)

fireproof78 wrote:

Also, many archeological finds support stories found in the biblical record, even among ancient Jewish villages.

There are archaeological finds indicating that a number of ancient cities named in the stories really did exist. That's not the same as supporting the stories. Going back to my Potter analogy, that would be equivalent to saying as London and King's Cross Station are known to exist, so therefore do/did Hogwarts and Albus Dumbledore.

278

(373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Sam F wrote:

I choose to believe the Bible because it's a reliable collection of historical documents, written by eyewitnesses during the lifetimes of other eyewitnesses.

None of which is true. Or at least none of which is supported by the extrabiblical historical record.

Sam F wrote:

When you get down to it, the Christian conclusion is that God exists independent of the universe He created, independent of space and time.

That's fine -- well, grantable for the sake of argument anyway -- but there's still a notion that this God interacts with space and time in demonstrable ways, yes? And that becomes a potentially scientific question.

Sam F wrote:

TL;DR If the biblical God exists, he’s totally worthy of love and praise.

I've said this on the show before, but I prefer the Gnostic view, at least from a purely "fantasy worldbuilding" aspect. The idea that material existence is a prison created by the evil Demiurge -- with another god who loves us, but isn't powerful enough to overthrow the Demiurge, interceding on our behalf and helping us beat the system -- is much more appealing and elegant than a single god prone to genocidal mood swings.

Also, presupposing the God of the Bible exists and is the one who wrote the Bible -- well, that's hardly an unbiased source, is it? It's more than a little plausible it's loaded up with more than a little pro-Yahweh propaganda, don'tcha think? I mean, you say God's wrath is justified because we're wicked, but if God's the one who wrote that -- well, he would say that, wouldn't he? That's how abusers and oppressors always justify themselves.

279

(373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I don't know if it's a fault of the language when there's no useful concept to be described by it. Generally when language "evolves," we stop using words we have no use for. But the word "God" clings on because people feel like it's important to keep it around, even when they say they "don't know" what they mean by it -- i.e., even when it is literally meaningless.

280

(10 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Doctor Submarine wrote:

But seriously. Torture Porn as a genre started to explode in a time when America was very angry. And since we couldn't just personally rip out the throats of everyone we hated, we resorted to watching people pretend to do it in movies. That's just my theory, anyway.

That's a compelling idea, though it's a little complicated by the fact that the people getting torn apart were generally more sympathetic than their torturers.

Maybe it's more like listening to sad songs when you're sad -- post-9/11 there was a cultural compulsion to wallow in the victimhood of senseless cruelty.

Then again, maybe we're overthinking it. Is it really so different than delighting in the inventive brutality of the pre-9/11 FRIDAY THE 13TH series? Perhaps it just comes down to that part of our base animal instincts that wants to kill the pig and spill its blood.

281

(373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I agree that a definition of God must be offered before it can be meaningfully discussed. If someone wants to point to their toaster and call it God, well, their toaster clearly exists so I guess their definition of God exists, although I don't find the label "God" particularly useful as it doesn't give me any information about the thing that the label "toaster" did not.

This is the same view I have toward defining "God" as "the universe."

In a nutshell, I find conventional definitions of "God" to be improbable and without merit, and unconventional definitions to be nebulous and without value.

With 24 hours to fill either way, I figure we might as well. I don't know if that's factored into the schedule on the site but since we've built breaks in between the films we've got wiggle room.

283

(473 replies, posted in Episodes)

Two spaces with monospace type, one space with proportional. I always double-space while writing scripts and single-space anything else. Code-switching, y'all.

But then, I type capital letters by toggling caps lock on and off, so take my typing recommendations as you will.

hey look star wars

BigDamnArtist wrote:

Good job with that whole "not turning this thread political" thing guys.

I'm fine with it in terms of philosophical discussion. Just, you know, I want to read about hummingbirds or something too, and politics have a tendency to overpower.

I would rather this thread not fall into being political -- we should start another thread for political discussion if so desired -- but I will just say I'm still not clear on what "conservatism" means, or what the "good" version is that people insist the modern American right-wing does not represent.

Most of the stuff I gravitate toward discovering and learning more about is, naturally, film-related. I'm certainly interested in other topics, but I don't always find them just due to the circles I run in and websites I read.

So, this is the thread to post cool or interesting sites or articles on topics not related to films or filmmaking. Let's introduce each other to new and exciting worlds of knowledge.

With that in mind, try to make posts/links educational. Don't just post a picture of a cool building, for example -- link to the architecture site explaining who designed it, what their thought process and goals were, etc. I don't want to just see something cool, I want to learn something cool.

Annnnnnnnd GO.

WELL I DONT LIKE HIS FACE

TREE OF LIFE was so close to working for me for a little while there. I watched it as part of the Best Picture showcase and I knew a lot of people had hated it, but about an hour and a half in I found myself thinking I was going to have to be the contrarian and carry its torch.

Then it kept going... and kept going... and marched steadily further and further up its own ass. It had me, it really did, and then it lost me.

Rob wrote:

What made that really sting for me is, when I initially saw TTOL, the first half of the movie—dinosaurs keeling over and such—got me excited that maybe Malick was heading toward almost the exact opposite sentiment. I.e., the universe doesn't care about us, so we should jolly well care about each other.

YES. This is exactly what made me think I might just love the movie, then it went the opposite way and so did my feelings on it.

289

(473 replies, posted in Episodes)

Hell, EMPIRE started shooting without even having a finished script.

290

(473 replies, posted in Episodes)

I have to confess that, considering the way blockbusters are made these days, I find myself looking at all these people worried about script delays and whether the movie will come out in 2015, and thinking "Why's everybody so worried? They've still got a year and a half."

291

(262 replies, posted in Episodes)

Well now I've got to see this flick. Pencil me in for the commentary.

292

(473 replies, posted in Episodes)

I just remind myself that STAR WARS was a clusterfuck pretty much every step of the way and managed to turn out okay. It's tradition!

Wait, am I being optimistic? WHAT IS HAPPENING. HELP ME.

293

(15 replies, posted in Creations)

Shot in a night with a bunch of the FIYH crew, edited in an afternoon, and finally finished a year later because I'm a lazy git. Anyway, enjoy!

Ah, that's William Goldman's view, and why he rejects rumors that he did a polish on the script (he never would've allowed that scene). Perhaps I was quoting him and it seemed like I was expressing my own opinion. The movie didn't make enough of an impression for me to bother forming one, honestly.

Darth Praxus wrote:

Dorkman hates Good Will Hunting?!

This is news to me as well. Did I say that in an episode?

Getting to midnight will be the easy part. Making it to noon again the next day is the real challenge.

Holden wrote:

If he wants his ring, he can't be an admin.

Them's the breaks.

We'll see about THAT.

*digs into admin panel*

*deletes entire internet somehow*

Also, I just want to say for the record I had nothing to do with Holden's user title.

I think the Three Cs of England is probably my favorite bit.

Anyone who makes it all 24 hours with us should get a little Deathly Hallows badge.

I'm not saying they will, mind you, because I don't know how to do that. But they should.

Drinking would be incompatible with my attempt to stay up for 24 hours. You'll have to make do with me being buzzed on caffeine.

Maybe I'll get hammered for the anniversary show or something since the world is crying out for my belligerent inebriation.