Re: Dr. Strangelove

While Dorkman was pretty aggressively terse — luv ya, man — he's got a point. Drawing a distinction between people who conform to some definition of Christianity and people who merely claim to be Christian is kind of weak sauce.

Then again, painting an entire ethos with a broad brush due to the actions of some people who self-describe as adherents to that ethos is similarly weak sauce.

Some people are dicks. Christians are people. Ergo, some Christians are dicks. I think we can all agree on that.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Dr. Strangelove

Jeffery Harrell wrote:

Drawing a distinction between people who conform to some definition of Christianity and people who merely claim to be Christian is kind of weak sauce.

In what way is it "weak sauce". And it's not "some definition", it's THE only possible definition. Christian means "follower of Christ". If one does not follow those teachings then one, by definition, is not a Christian. It isn't a religious opinion, it is fact.

And of course there are people who say they are Christians who are "dicks". Part of Christianity is to acknowledge that we all fall short of the mark (the actual definition of the Greek word translated "sin")

Last edited by fardawg (2010-08-05 13:51:12)

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Dr. Strangelove

That's just the thing, you see. It's not the only possible definition. Other people have different definitions; QED. Nobody says you have to agree with their definitions, but it's not reasonable to just pretend they don't exist just because they don't jive with your own interpretation of what "Christian" means. The same is true for any named ethos, obviously.

If you want a substantive discussion on this — and for god's sake, please no — then it has to start with ideas, not bickering over semantics. Okay, fine, some people who self-identify as Christian do or say things that you don't think Christians should do or say. So what? They still do that stuff, and they still self-identify as Christians, and its not like anybody can sue them for trademark infringement for using the word without permission, so … what? What's the point of hauling out the "they're not really" thing?

Now. On the other hand. I could get tee shirts made up that say "I'm so Christian you just can't believe it" and then go on a killing spree and murder like a hundred toddlers. Would my actions say anything at all about Christianity? Not a damn thing, not any more than if I'd described myself as a Democrat or a Cubs fan. Unless there's some apparent causal link, or even compelling correlation, between two aspects of somebody's behavior, saying "That guy was X, so X is bad" is just fucking stupid.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Dr. Strangelove

Hmm, it's probably time to take this to the religion thread if this conversation is going to keep going this way (and please, let's not).

Re: Dr. Strangelove

Jeffery Harrell wrote:

That's just the thing, you see. It's not the only possible definition. Other people have different definitions; QED. Nobody says you have to agree with their definitions, but it's not reasonable to just pretend they don't exist just because they don't jive with your own interpretation of what "Christian" means.

It isn't "my" interpretation. The word "Christian" was first used in Antioch to identify those who followed the teachings of Jesus and the apostles (Acts 11:26 if anyone cares). Any other definition is made up. C. S. Lewis compared it to the word "gentleman" which lost its original meaning and early uses of it became useless unless people knew what it originally referred to.
Words have meaning. If definitions become relative then we have no basis for understanding what anyone is saying. If I say I am a Buddhist but go against the fundamental teachings of Buddhism, I am not, by definition, a Buddhist. If I say I am a  Socialist Liberal Democrat but vote only for Capitalist Conservative Republicans, I am, by definition, not a Socialist liberal democrat.
Any definition of Christian has to be based on New Testament teaching - i.e. the foundation of Christianity - or else there is no reason to even use the word. It becomes an illogical mess otherwise. We have to have a definition to hold people to. Once again, this is not a religious debate but a debate about defining what words mean. I would say the same for any other religion or political movement.

I've said all I have to say on the subject. If you don't get that there has to be known, objective definitions in order to make any sense of words, then we can't possibly continue to communicate.

Last edited by fardawg (2010-08-05 19:17:34)

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Dr. Strangelove

The point everyone is trying to make is that the word "Christian" is not a set of terms to be adhered to, it's a word, and a word used as a category. People vary on their interpretation of the terms. So when you say 'it's not Christian to do this,' it doesn't automatically make it so, any more than saying 'it's not being a football player to do this' applies to insert-punchline-player-here.

Arguably, the only truly "Christian" way to be would be to follow the word of the Bible literally, and any conceivable way that your beliefs or day to day activity vary from that makes you so much less "Christian." Ever mix linens?

To reply to this message, report to The Religion Thread. Let's get back to nuclear war.

Teague Chrystie

I have a tendency to fix your typos.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Dr. Strangelove

Why no sequel? Godzilla should have appeared out of the North Sea.

Warning: I'm probably rewriting this post as you read it.

Zarban's House of Commentaries

Re: Dr. Strangelove

They enter their deep caves to survive the doomsday bombs, and find THEM!

I write stories! With words!
http://www.asstr.org/~Invid_Fan/

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Dr. Strangelove

downinfront wrote:

Ever mix linens?

That was Judaic law, which Christ superseded.

I mean, if we're going to get pedantic.

Posted from my iPad
http://trek.fm

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Dr. Strangelove

Okay, I just actually watched the movie and listened to the commentary, and it was really excellent. Informative and yet laugh-out-loud funny at times.

I think comedies are the hardest to commentate on, but obviously this one is a social commentary itself, and you really had some good discussion of the era, the mindset, and all but still covered the basic film-making techniques also. Really top notch. Thanks a hundred.

No wait! Wait! Thanks a million.

Warning: I'm probably rewriting this post as you read it.

Zarban's House of Commentaries

Re: Dr. Strangelove

Another good one, guys. I'm weird, i usually try not to watch the movie with the commentary or else i might switch you off and watch the movie like i did a couple of times here.

Zarban wrote:

Henry Fonda bombs New York!

And soylent green is made of people. People! But yeah, the scene where the president yells at the pilots to turn around and they won't listen is awesome.

Jeffery Harrell wrote:

The world was balanced on the head of a pin, and we all knew it.

Damn man, you're like one of the fucking Hyperion pilgrims. (That's meant as a compliment. smile )

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Dr. Strangelove

Oooh. Oooh. Can I be Fedmahn Kassad? He was a badass who got to have sex with a superhero girl from the future.

Um. Spoilers.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Dr. Strangelove

Back on the subject of nuclear war, there's a great game out there called DEFCON. It was inspired by (and directly emulates) the big board from Wargames. It's maybe the darkest game I've ever played. The soundtrack is very low-key, elegiac classical music, but if you turn the sound all the way up, deep in the background you can hear distant sobbing. It rules.

The multiplayer is great, too. Get three or four friends, set the game to "survival" scoring mode and the slowest possible speed and off you go. Nobody wants to fire the first shot — in "survival" mode everyone starts off with 100 points and loses points for every civilian casualty suffered; winner is the one who loses the least — and the tension can just be ridiculous.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Dr. Strangelove

I liked the old Colecovision WARGAMES game. Russian missiles, bombers, and subs are attacking the US, and you must shoot them down. You used the keypad to switch between 4 maps of the US which were all being attacked at once, and if you suffer enough damage to bring NORAD to DEFCON 1 the game ends with the US launching hundreds of nukes in counterattack.

I write stories! With words!
http://www.asstr.org/~Invid_Fan/

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Dr. Strangelove

Heh. I can just picture a classroom of 16 year olds watching the opening scene with the secretary and going "what the hell is this?"

Thumbs up Thumbs down