DVD Talk
What happened to Chris Tucker? Should a Christian take un-Christian acting jobs? [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : What happened to Chris Tucker? Should a Christian take un-Christian acting jobs?


Pages : [1] 2

Filmmaker
05-05-05, 02:23 PM
He was praising Jesus on one of those holy rollers, 700 Club-ish channels the other day...I thought, damn, what brought about this change of course? Personally, I find it hysterical when people like Tucker (star of such holy-minded, G-rated works as JACKIE BROWN, MONEY TALKS and RUSH HOUR) spend an hour or two expounding on how Jesus has lifted their lives...

SPiRAL
05-05-05, 04:06 PM
/\ /\ /\ Don't forget FRiDAY.

conscience
05-05-05, 04:37 PM
/\ /\ /\ Don't forget FRiDAY.


YES! My friends and I love this movie. He's perfect as Smokey.

"I know you don't smoke weed, I know this; but I'm gonna get you high today, 'cause it's Friday; you ain't got no job... and you ain't got shit to do."

"Weed is from the earth. God put this here for me and you. Take advantage man, take advantage."

"No sugar? Damn. Y'all ain't never got two things that match. Either ya'll got Kool-aid, no sugar. Peanut butter, no jelly. Ham, no burger. Daaaaaamn."

"You got to be a stupid motherfucker to get fired on your day off."

"You just got knocked the <i>FUCK</i> out!"

"Puff puff, give. Puff puff, give. You're fuckin' up the rotation."

"Well, I'm going into rehab. I'm through with this shit...I was just bullshittin'. And you know this, man."

jaeufraser
05-05-05, 04:45 PM
I dont' find it that hysterical. Since he's stated he would never do a role like Friday again (probably due to his beliefs) and the Rush Hour movies aren't really raunchy films themselves. He's changed in the last 6 years, and his career reflects that I suppose since he doesn't do anything.

As for 40 million dollars...that's insane. He's been out of the psotlight, and I seriously doubt a Rush Hour 3 will reach the heights the second film did. But who knows...he might come roaring back.

calhoun07
05-05-05, 04:45 PM
He will be appearing with Jesus in Passion of the Christ 2: Crucify This!

Brent L
05-07-05, 02:18 PM
He was praising Jesus on one of those holy rollers, 700 Club-ish channels the other day...I thought, damn, what brought about this change of course? Personally, I find it hysterical when people like Tucker (star of such holy-minded, G-rated works as JACKIE BROWN, MONEY TALKS and RUSH HOUR) spend an hour or two expounding on how Jesus has lifted their lives...

I'm a Christian, wouldn't do a lot of stuff in my real life, but I see nothing wrong with portraying a character in a play, TV show, film, etc... that goes against your personal beliefs in your real life.

Filmmaker
05-07-05, 02:34 PM
So (and I'm playing--no irony intended--devil's advocate here, since I'm not a theist), it's okay to further a non-Christian ethic as long as you're in the guise of a character? Doesn't the Christian God demand you follow his precepts in all things? Doesn't he place his edicts above those that might be found in a screenplay, or a director's aesthetic? Do you mean to say that God is okay with you pressing the pause button on your beliefs, your pact with him, as it were, whenever the spotlight is aimed at you?

Brent L
05-07-05, 02:52 PM
When you are acting in a play or whatever, that isn't really your true self doing that. Besides, when in a play or a movie you aren't REALLY killing someone, taking drugs (in most films, heh), and on and on and on. If God faulted all Christians for doing things in film and plays, then even Christian churches could not have Biblical plays and that sort of thing that we see all the time. You really think that the guy playing the character of satan would be held accountable for doing things against Christ in the play? Or heck, any of the Christian movies that are made where some characters still do bad things.

Filmmaker
05-07-05, 03:34 PM
But wouldn't the difference be that portraying such roles in passion plays and other such Christian tales would be in service of a story that furthers an allegedly holy agenda? Do you argue that a Christian ethic/agenda is being forwarded in JACKIE BROWN or MONEY TALKS or FRIDAY? If not, then I again return to the question--is it acceptable to subvert your convictions in the interests of making yourself famous and banking much $$$?

Artman
05-07-05, 03:50 PM
I'm not sure about Tucker's personal faith and how/when it came about, but if it's recent than it's not fair to hold previous work against him.

I myself am a Christian and I would find it difficult to act out a role which required countless obscenities or sexual scenes. That to me is a little different than putting on some fake syrup and pretending to kill people in a battle or something. I would have to take into acount what the film's about and the message, and weigh that against what's required for it. It'd be tough being an actor and staying true to my faith.

Tucker has the advantage of already being a wealthy star, so he can be selective if he wants to be.

Filmmaker
05-07-05, 04:03 PM
I'm not sure about Tucker's personal faith and how/when it came about, but if it's recent than it's not fair to hold previous work against him.

I didn't watch long enough to know if his conversion was recent or not, but I think the question still stands considering we're talking about RUSH HOUR 3 which, while a far cry from the darkness and "sinfulness" expounded in JACKIE BROWN, if it follows the case of its predecessors in the trilogy, will be rated PG-13 for action violence, language and some sexual material. As you mentioned, taking in the totality of the piece, is RUSH HOUR something in which God would take pride? Does it foster or subvert the kind of ethos he asserts for the world?

Artman
05-07-05, 04:59 PM
As you mentioned, taking in the totality of the piece, is RUSH HOUR something in which God would take pride? Does it foster or subvert the kind of ethos he asserts for the world?

Good questions. It's been years since I've seen the films, I enjoyed the first as it was a fairly light-hearted action/comedy with the culture clashing being mostly in good fun. I couldn't stand the 2nd and I remember it being more offensive overall.

It's a borderline call I suppose, maybe the scripts are more in-line with the first one.. I suppose one could make a case for (reasonably) offensive content in comedies being ok for purely entertainment purposes... I normally watch more serious movies where I feel it's appropriate to show things as they are.(of course not every Christian thinks this way)

Not to get too off-track but I think Jim Caviezel's made some good choices over the years.

Filmmaker
05-07-05, 05:12 PM
I suppose one could make a case for (reasonably) offensive content in comedies being ok for purely entertainment purposes...

But I wonder where one would find scriptural support for such an argument. "It's okay to sprinkle a little of Satan's influence around as long as I'm making money and everyone else is havin' fun..."

jaeufraser
05-07-05, 05:20 PM
I certainly do not watch the Rush Hour films and think these are things that go against the Christian mindset. You have two heros, one who happens to be a loud mouth, doing right and stopping the bad guy. Are you really saying this is a hypocritical thing for a Christian to do? Sure Tucker's character is rather ribald and likes the women, but the film hardly portrays wanton sex and violence.

Tucker has been known to say he won't do roles like that of Friday again. His religious leannigs came after much of his success, and a major reason he wasn't in those sequels was because he did not want to play a stoner like that again. Being a Christian doesn't involve being a tight ass. There's nothing in the Bible that says you can't be in a movie like Rush Hour which, by all means, is a fairly light hearted, good natured film series. Just because extremists Christians give the impression that you must be 100% holy and never be human does not mean that all Christians live that way. Christianity is about a relationship with God and Jesus Christ when you get down to it. I see no hypocrisy there, and it's a hell of a stretch to claim there is one. Find me in the Bible where it says saying words like "bitch" or saying that chick is hot is somehow biblically wrong. That's not really what Christianity is about for everyone, even if many do live by those precepts.

Filmmaker
05-07-05, 05:53 PM
My sense of Christianity has always been you can do things to honor Christ, or to dishonor him. Does "action violence, language and some sexual material" honor him, or dishonor? Do you argue that they are more palatable to God/Christ because they aren't wanton? Again, a little bit of sin is okay if it's all in good fun and a little money can be made on the side?

Oh, and to answer your direct questions:

Profanity--

Matthew 15:11: "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man."

Matthew 15:17-20: "Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man."

Colosians 3:8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. 9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him."

Matthew 12:34-36: "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. 35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. 36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment."

Psalm 19:14: "Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer."

Lust--

Galatians 5:19-25: "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit."

Galatians 6:7-8, "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting."

Philippians 4:8 says, "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."

Psalm 101:2-7, "I will behave myself wisely in a perfect way. O when wilt thou come unto me? I will walk within my house with a perfect heart. I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me."

Demontooth
05-07-05, 07:55 PM
oh my

Artman
05-07-05, 08:39 PM
But I wonder where one would find scriptural support for such an argument. "It's okay to sprinkle a little of Satan's influence around as long as I'm making money and everyone else is havin' fun..."

I should've added it would be a weak argument...

Some Christians are just a little looser than others when it comes to language. I do think the manner in which you speak is more important than the specific words used. For example I think "I hate you!" is more offensive than "that's f-in awesome!" I personally avoid using profane words due to being an example around others and being above reproach.

But whether or not it's ok to pretend for a movie or play, I've never been in that position but it's something a believer should seriously consider. I'm guessing Tucker doesn't exactly take the hard-line on those things, and that's something he'll have to deal with and answer for. Hopefully he's got some other believers and good pastor(s) to help him along the way.

jaeufraser
05-08-05, 12:00 AM
I guess I just don't see it. He's stated he won't do roles like Friday and such again, and the Rush Hour movies are overall pretty tame, non-offensive films. Slight racial humor, minimal profane cursing, no sex (sure he makes light of the good looking women but sex isn't even mentioned). I guess I don't see how anyone could consider that some sort of problem with his religion.

Filmmaker
05-08-05, 11:42 AM
jaeufraser, so I'm just trying to get this straight, and though it may read otherwise, I'm not necessarily trying to judge anyone (remember, I don't even believe in God)--it honestly sounds like you're saying you're willing to consider yourself a Christian, and live by a Christian ethic, as long as it doesn't prove too inconvenient to your lifestyle. Am I right? That's how your argument reads to me. If so, then yes, the compromises of faith so-called Christians such as yourself and Chris Tucker are willing to make in the name of money and a good time strike me as hypocritical (okay, well I guess that's a judgment). I'm honestly not trying to target you, I just really can't wrap my head around the excuses Christians such as yourself repeatedly make for moderating your level of faith from scenario to scenario. What is the value of the Christian faith in your life if you are not willing to give 100% of yourself to its edicts? Is it out of a sense of societal obligation ("eveyone else is doing it, so maybe I should, too"), or does Christianity hold real meaning to you? If the latter, then again, I'm confused at the lack of follow-through, of true piousness. Sorry to put the spotlight of criticism on you, but you did lay down the gauntlet of debate...

thephantom
05-08-05, 11:57 AM
I stopped reading after this turned into a Theological debate, but Filmmaker, it really sounds like you're pushing fundamentalism. That's the very absolute last thing we need more of in any religion. You can be spiritual and not have to follow everything some other dude wrote in a book. Unfortunately yes, most Christians don't encourage spirituality over fundementalism.

A fundementalist will tell you have to follow the bible to the letter. He'll even tell you which version(since there's several floating around). He'll probably selectively forget and remember certain parts. Bin Laden had a cleric on payroll who's "job" was selectively forget and remember things, or interpret them certain ways, to add religious context to his bullshit.

A spiritualist will tell you he doesn't need a bible.

Or, to put in another example, here's a quote Dead Man Walking:

Prison guard: Tell me something sister, what is nun doing in a place like this. Shouldn't you be teaching children? Didn't you know what this man has done? How he killed them kids?
Sister Helen Prejean: What he was involved with was evil. I don't condone it. I just don't see the sense of killing people to say that killing people's wrong.
Prison guard: You know what the Bible say, 'An eye for an eye'.
Sister Helen Prejean: You know what else the Bible asks for death as a punishment? For adultery, prostitution, homosexuality, trespass upon sacred grounds, profane in a sabbath and contempt to parents.
Prison guard: I ain't gonna get no Bible quotin contest with no nun cause I'm gonna lose.

the aftermath
05-08-05, 01:46 PM
So (and I'm playing--no irony intended--devil's advocate here, since I'm not a theist), it's okay to further a non-Christian ethic as long as you're in the guise of a character? Doesn't the Christian God demand you follow his precepts in all things? Doesn't he place his edicts above those that might be found in a screenplay, or a director's aesthetic? Do you mean to say that God is okay with you pressing the pause button on your beliefs, your pact with him, as it were, whenever the spotlight is aimed at you?
It's called acting for Christ's sake. :rolleyes: ACTING!

Filmmaker
05-08-05, 03:57 PM
Filmmaker, it really sounds like you're pushing fundamentalism.

That's a riot--allow me to state again unequivocably for those who are missing it: I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN; I AM NOT A THEIST; I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANY SUPERNATURAL FORCES RESPONSIBLE FOR OR AT WORK IN OUR LIVES! I am playing the part of devil's advocate because I am interested in digging to the truth in all matters, including philosophical beliefs which do not mirror my own. How is holding a self-professed Christian to task for upholding only the precepts of his faith that do not put a crimp in his lifestyle espousing fundamentalism (the scourge of the 21st Century, I agree, thephantom)? I simply assert that, whatever your chosen belief, should not one walk the walk if they're gonna talk the talk? If one is going to sit at the pot, should he not shit or get off and make way for the next person called my nature? It's interesting that you note that a fundamentalist will espouse certain parts of his chosen doctrine, while ignoring others, to meet his own ends--in the case of Chris Tucker and jaeufraser, I make the same observation, not for reasons of power, like the fundamentalist, but for reasons of inconvenience, like the bandwagoner, who perhaps feels obliged to participate in a religion that doesn't really ring true in his heart. The debate was brought to me, not the other way around--so if my original assertion is to be accused as a "far reach", I'd like to get to the heart of why the accuser feels so.

the aftermath, ooohhh, so that's what makes it okay for a Christian to take what he wants from Christ's teachings and leave the rest...I see...acting...

jaeufraser
05-08-05, 04:36 PM
jaeufraser, so I'm just trying to get this straight, and though it may read otherwise, I'm not necessarily trying to judge anyone (remember, I don't even believe in God)--it honestly sounds like you're saying you're willing to consider yourself a Christian, and live by a Christian ethic, as long as it doesn't prove too inconvenient to your lifestyle. Am I right? That's how your argument reads to me. If so, then yes, the compromises of faith so-called Christians such as yourself and Chris Tucker are willing to make in the name of money and a good time strike me as hypocritical (okay, well I guess that's a judgment). I'm honestly not trying to target you, I just really can't wrap my head around the excuses Christians such as yourself repeatedly make for moderating your level of faith from scenario to scenario. What is the value of the Christian faith in your life if you are not willing to give 100% of yourself to its edicts? Is it out of a sense of societal obligation ("eveyone else is doing it, so maybe I should, too"), or does Christianity hold real meaning to you? If the latter, then again, I'm confused at the lack of follow-through, of true piousness. Sorry to put the spotlight of criticism on you, but you did lay down the gauntlet of debate...


Well, I'm not a Christian myself. I don't hold those beliefs whatsoever save for a belief that there probably is a god. But having grown up in that lifestyle, I can say that Christianity is something that cannot be simply labeled. It is different for many people. I know Christians that have had sex outside of marriage. That curse on occasion. That have used recreational drugs. There are churches that allow for gay ministers. I do know the key thing that really defines most Christians is their relationship with God and Jesus Christ, not a complete following of whatever the most conservative parts of a society deems bad.

My simple point is, you are coming up with a view of Chrisitianity and holding every Christian to it. There is no hypocrisy until Chris Tucker himself states that these things are outside the boundary of his Christianity. You sound yourself like a non Christian, judging Christians based on what you think their beliefs are. But liek any religion, these beliefs are wide ranging and can stand for many a thing. But I guess what it comes down to is, these little nitpicky things we're talking about from the Rush Hour movie I don't think would give much pause to anyone. Honestly the only thing that Tucker even does in these movies that might be considered sin is curse, and even then I'm sure a good argument could be made that that has nothing to do with religion. Considering cursing is a societal ill, and I don't recall him taking the Lord's name in vain in the films. No sex is had, all violence is done in a self defense way.

So my point? He's a Christian, and does tame films. He has said he will not do films like Friday again, as he does not wish to portray those negative roles on screen again. But where the line is for Christians is something you have to ask each person. How about Rene Russo? She's a Christian, and has done more cursing and heck nudity then Tucker has even thought about in the last 7 years. But if you think cursing, or portraying acts of sex somehow mean one cannot be a Christian, I can do nothing but disagree. I've known many a Christian, and while I hardly agree at all with them in terms of their supernatural beliefs, I do know many are good, positive people and these little things which are not clearly outlined in the Bible and hardly agreed on across every sect of the religion, they hardly represent any hypocrisy to me. If playing a loud mouth but good natured hero cop in a pg-13 movie makes Tucker a hypocrite, then so be it, but I just don't see it. I'm sure those films might offend some Christians, but not all think alike, not all interpret their religion the same, so putting a blanket definiton of how everyone should act is a bit narrow sighted I think.

Filmmaker
05-09-05, 09:54 AM
I do know the key thing that really defines most Christians is their relationship with God and Jesus Christ, not a complete following of whatever the most conservative parts of a society deems bad.

But I'm not holding them against what conservative society thinks (as a tree-hugging, heathen liberal, I doubt I could even fake it); I'm holding them against actual scripture, as I quoted in an earlier response to you. Scripture is meant to represent the Word of God; therefore, I continue to assert that it is hypocritical to espouse yourself as a Christian, but pick and choose only those aspects of scripture that don't inconvenience your lifestyle. I'm rather flabbergasted that this simple point is so difficult to get across. And I don't mean to judge Christians against not being more piously Christian--frankly, I'd prefer they abandon their beliefs altogether, which I find to be likely fictional, and certainly inconsistent in morality--I simply mean to target hypocrisy in all its forms; for the purposes of this debate, it happens to just take the form of adherence to the Christian faith.

My simple point is, you are coming up with a view of Chrisitianity and holding every Christian to it.

I am holding them to the so-called Word of God as laid out in the Bible, yes. If we are not to hold Christians accountable for following the precepts as provided in this source, then I would say we are shifting the focus of
Christianity to the level of moral relativity, which renders the religion, and the purpose for it, complete inert. Might as well just go with the "God is Dead" approach and become a moral relativist like me.

There is no hypocrisy until Chris Tucker himself states that these things are outside the boundary of his Christianity.

Frankly, I find this statement shocking and ill-informed--are you telling me Christians determine the bounds of their faith, not Christ?! Again, we return to the pick-and-choose relativistic approach, which I daresay has no place in religion, Christianity or otherwise.

You sound yourself like a non Christian, judging Christians based on what you think their beliefs are.[//QUOTE]

Again, I'm simply holding them to the precepts of the so-called Word of God--the quotes in the Bible, outside of some archaic language and grammar, are pretty clear on what God will be holding us all accountable for, if he indeed exists.

[QUOTE=jaeufraser]But like any religion, these beliefs are wide ranging and can stand for many a thing.

But once Christians allow their beliefs to be relative against God's/Christ's teachings as clarified in the Bible, then who's interests are being served--God's, or ours?

But I guess what it comes down to is, these little nitpicky things we're talking about from the Rush Hour movie I don't think would give much pause to anyone. Honestly the only thing that Tucker even does in these movies that might be considered sin is curse, and even then I'm sure a good argument could be made that that has nothing to do with religion. Considering cursing is a societal ill, and I don't recall him taking the Lord's name in vain in the films. No sex is had, all violence is done in a self defense way.

I showed you ample quotes from the Bible expressing God's commandments regarding foul language and lasciviousness alone. Why do you choose to ignore them, or minimize their value? If your approach is to say, "Yeah, maybe God said that, but that was 2,000 years ago--what's that got to do with today?", then I'm not sure where we can head in this discussion. If the Word of God is not of paramount importance to the speaker, then I accuse that speaker of not being a Christian, no matter what he calls himself, since the Word of God clearly makes the case that God takes precedence in all things.

But where the line is for Christians is something you have to ask each person.

Moral relativism. And I love seeing it appear over and over again, because it's my own personal philosophy. All you gotta do now is get rid of that silly Santa Claus of the Sky crap, because you can't have it both ways.

How about Rene Russo? She's a Christian, and has done more cursing and heck nudity then Tucker has even thought about in the last 7 years.

Hey, throw in her the mix, that's fine--there's plenty of room.

But if you think cursing, or portraying acts of sex somehow mean one cannot be a Christian, I can do nothing but disagree.

It certainly means they are not putting God's edicts first and foremost in their lives, as the Bible commands them to, so at best, it means that they are compromised Christians, and if there is any truth to the Christian faith, I believe they will have some series accountability issues with the Santa Claus of the Sky one day.

I've known many a Christian, and while I hardly agree at all with them in terms of their supernatural beliefs, I do know many are good, positive people and these little things which are not clearly outlined in the Bible and hardly agreed on across every sect of the religion, they hardly represent any hypocrisy to me.

In what way were the Bible quotes I posted not clearly outlined? Wherein were they gray?

If playing a loud mouth but good natured hero cop in a pg-13 movie makes Tucker a hypocrite, then so be it, but I just don't see it. I'm sure those films might offend some Christians, but not all think alike, not all interpret their religion the same, so putting a blanket definiton of how everyone should act is a bit narrow sighted I think.

If it is narrow-sighted to say those who follow the precepts of the Bible are acting in accordance with God's wishes and those who don't are not, then consider me guilty as charged. But remember, I don't speak to issues not addressed in the Bible (such as whether it's okay for women to wear pants, or whether only Republicans are going to heaven, etc.), but actual scripture that specifically targets the issues, the "sins", you so easily dismiss out of hand.

Well, I'm not a Christian myself.

And perhaps this is the core flaw with our debate. You do not hold yourself accountable to the so-called Word of God, so how can you effectively answer my charge of hypocrisy among certain Christians?

thephantom
05-10-05, 01:54 AM
That's a riot--allow me to state again unequivocably for those who are missing it: I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN; I AM NOT A THEIST; I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANY SUPERNATURAL FORCES RESPONSIBLE FOR OR AT WORK IN OUR LIVES! Iacting...


You're taking a Christian spiritualist to task for not being fundementalist enough to suit YOUR view of what a Christian "should" be. There's how many versions of the bible? I'm not a Chritian, I honestly don't know. I know at least one got a "directors cut" from basically a random jackass who just happend to be king, and some others didn't, that's pretty much the extent of my knowledge. Of the others, how many of those just plopped down from heaven? Last I heard, Christ hasn't appeared on a Barbara Walters special and said "You know, it's all about the Mormons, folks."

Simple fact is, humans, not supreme beings, wrote the Old Testament. Same with New Testament. Same with the Koran, the Kaballah, the Book of Mormon, and Dianetics. There was another guy named Siddhartha, not sure if he wrote anything down himself but apparently he talked quite a bit. Pretty sure he wasn't a supreme being either. Perhaps Chris Tucker has his own version which he's following perfectly.

As I pointed out in my post with the Dead Man Walking quote, the Catholic Church itself at the very highest levels doesn't follow many original precepts. Some things aren't specific, some cases the original meaning is a little lost in translation, and many things are open to interpretation. Some things just plain don't work that way anymore. The leaders of the churches have instead changed or set their minds on some things. You can say it's for whatever reasons, but could it be possible God changed or set their minds for them after God decided on his own conclusion? Not being a supreme being yourself, you can't really answer that can you?

I totally understand what you're trying to do, and that's basically call a significant portion of the population of Earth stupid without actually doing so. You obviously aren't interested in the philosophical debate of religion vs spirituality and how either and both can impact or enchance lives. Instead you come across as a millitaint aethiest, with no room for the spiritual. To me that's every bit as bad and close minded as a millitant christian. None of it really has a place in this forum, and you're essentially throwing barbs at Christians(which I totally get, I think Christians are the worst thing to happen to Christianity), when pretty much every religion, major or minor, is deserving as well. Some more than others, but singleling out Christians is not needed to prove your point(assuming you even have one beyond just stirring up shit).

The funniest thing is that you're arguement is in a way circular. You're saying everyone should be more into fundementalist religion, which essentially means that most religions should execute you for heresy. Might want to be careful who you preach your brand of religion to.

The Bus
05-10-05, 09:02 AM
He'll make movies again once he runs out of money.

*cough* Al Green *cough*

Groucho
05-10-05, 09:03 AM
Isn't he a big supporter of Michael Jackson? Last time I checked, serial child molestation was a biblical no-no.

tbird2340
05-10-05, 09:24 AM
I didn't read this whole thread because I came to a point in the thread where I figured I had enough info to post.

From the posts I read it looks as if some are trying to figure out what God thinks.. Is that really up to us?

Matthew 7:3
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

If God thinks what CT is doing is wrong then that is between CT and God, not us. Do I agree with him acting in movies that portray him as an ungodly man, no.. But that's not up to me to say he shouldn't be..

Just my 2cents

NotThatGuy
05-10-05, 09:56 AM
*pulls up chair*

This is gonna get good....

Filmmaker
05-10-05, 10:26 AM
You're taking a Christian spiritualist to task for not being fundementalist enough to suit YOUR view of what a Christian "should" be. There's how many versions of the bible? I'm not a Chritian, I honestly don't know. I know at least one got a "directors cut" from basically a random jackass who just happend to be king, and some others didn't, that's pretty much the extent of my knowledge. Of the others, how many of those just plopped down from heaven? Last I heard, Christ hasn't appeared on a Barbara Walters special and said "You know, it's all about the Mormons, folks."

Find me any copy of the Bible without the quotes I rendered and we'll talk, but until then, you're blowing vapor.

Simple fact is, humans, not supreme beings, wrote the Old Testament. Same with New Testament. Same with the Koran, the Kaballah, the Book of Mormon, and Dianetics. There was another guy named Siddhartha, not sure if he wrote anything down himself but apparently he talked quite a bit. Pretty sure he wasn't a supreme being either. Perhaps Chris Tucker has his own version which he's following perfectly.

So, your point is the Bible is not the Word of God? Then you and I agree. But if it isn't, then we've pretty much blown the Christian religion to shit--who'd a'thunk it'd only take a few posts on a DVD-related forum? "Hey guys, you can chill--there's no God and never has been; you've been worshipping nothing but men 2,000 years in the ground."

As I pointed out in my post with the Dead Man Walking quote, the Catholic Church itself at the very highest levels doesn't follow many original precepts. Some things aren't specific, some cases the original meaning is a little lost in translation, and many things are open to interpretation. Some things just plain don't work that way anymore.

Ah ha! The spectre of moral relativism rears its beautiful head again. "Yeah, God said it, but what's that got to do with now? It's the 21st Century, man, and the simple fact is a lot of what Christ and God were talking about then is just shit in the modern age, ya know?" Your argument consistently puts man in charge of Christianity, not God/Christ. Is that how it is to be? Are you aware and comfortable that when you say you worship God, you're really just worhipping a man-made and man-operated church?

The leaders of the churches have instead changed or set their minds on some things. You can say it's for whatever reasons, but could it be possible God changed or set their minds for them after God decided on his own conclusion? Not being a supreme being yourself, you can't really answer that can you?

No, but your level of "maybe" here I think exceeds the bounds of worthwhile theory. You've converted every aspect of Christianity into one big relativistic "maybe"--what's the point of the religion even existing at all if you aren't prepared to accede that your alleged creator has set down certain moral absolutes?

I totally understand what you're trying to do, and that's basically call a significant portion of the population of Earth stupid without actually doing so.

I consider them hypocrites for not following the most basic tenets of Biblical morality, for practicing moral relativity under the guise of a religion that is built of moral absolutes, allt he while calling themselves Christians. I consider them stupid for being theists in the first place, but the question of "should one believe in God or not?" is not my interest in this thread. For the purposes of this thread, I simply accept that a massive portion of the population has, so I'm taking them to task for bandwagonning their faith. I'm trying to show that if you're willing to talk the Christian talk but not walk the Christian walk, then you're wasting your own time as a theist by lying to yourself regarding your true nature as a moral relativist, my time as a non-theist who spends day after day slugging through the morass of Christian dogma that pervades this nation, and God's and Christ's time, if they so exist, by not extending them their required due.

You obviously aren't interested in the philosophical debate of religion vs spirituality and how either and both can impact or enchance lives.

Once you apply the word "Christian" to yourself, you left the bounds of simple spirituality and entered the realm of religion. Therefore, the tenets of this religion is where I base my concerns.

Instead you come across as a millitaint aethiest, with no room for the spiritual.

I consider myself a very spiritual person, but certainly not a religious one. I rankle at the label "atheist", as it implies someone who believes as fervently that there is no god as a theist believes there is one. I have no proof either way and feel that conviction in that which has no proof is foolish thinking. I will concede that I feel science has gone a long way toward explaining a naturalistic universe with no need of a supernatural creator, but I have no ultimate proof either way. Whether god exists or not is less essential of a question to me than what is the ultimate vlaue of hinging our collective morality on the supposition of one. For whatever it's worth, if a label is to be assigned to my personal beliefs, the one I would consider most valid would be "secular humanist".

you're essentially throwing barbs at Christians(which I totally get, I think Christians are the worst thing to happen to Christianity), when pretty much every religion, major or minor, is deserving as well. Some more than others, but singleling out Christians is not needed to prove your point(assuming you even have one beyond just stirring up shit).

This argument stemmed from Chris Tucker considering himself a Christian and touting the wonders of his religion of choice on a religious TV channel. Why would any other religion need to be entered into this discussion (though my thoughts would certainly extend to them, as well)?

The funniest thing is that you're arguement is in a way circular. You're saying everyone should be more into fundementalist religion, which essentially means that most religions should execute you for heresy. Might want to be careful who you preach your brand of religion to.

I would say that I have more respect for the so-called fundamentalist--assuming you're now using the word to denote someone who is faithful to the letter of his religion's founding scripture, and not someone who over-emphasizes some elements of scripture and subverts others in the name of power--than the so-called believer who doesn't practice what he is preached. As far as any harm that might come my way via fundamentalism of either definition, I'm already convinced that, if the wave of Christian dogma continues to overpower all other cultural and philosophical voices in this nation as it has for the last several years, a war between Christians and the rest of us may very well become a reality.

gimmepilotwings
05-10-05, 10:34 AM
Don't you think God has a sense of humor? I mean come on, Friday, Rush Hour, Fifth Element... etc, classic Chris Tucker. Even his early days on Def Comedy Jam are instant classics.

DodgingCars
05-10-05, 10:36 AM
Filmmakers posts are far too long for me to respond to directly. Heck, I can't even finish them. But I do agree with him that if you are a Christian, you should uphold Biblical values. I disagree with him on what those Biblical values are. I don't think God is mad at Chris Tucker for doing the Rush Hour movies, which are basically just harmless (for teens/adults), fun movies.

DodgingCars
05-10-05, 10:44 AM
Profanity--

Matthew 15:11: "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man."

Matthew 15:17-20: "Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man."

Colosians 3:8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. 9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him."

Matthew 12:34-36: "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. 35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. 36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment."

Psalm 19:14: "Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer."

Funny thing about those passages. I don't believe the word "shit" even existed yet. I suspect that God was much more concerned about what you are saying than what words you are using.


Lust--

Galatians 5:19-25: "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit."

Galatians 6:7-8, "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting."

Philippians 4:8 says, "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."

Psalm 101:2-7, "I will behave myself wisely in a perfect way. O when wilt thou come unto me? I will walk within my house with a perfect heart. I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me."

Some of those I don't think are really about "lust." And not all lust is sexual lust, but is basically a strong desire. And there can be "good lust", such as a lust for holiness. However, Lust <> Attracted to. I can think a girl is pretty without "lusting after her." I think lust is basically when the desire leads to temptation to do evil.

Filmmaker
05-10-05, 10:52 AM
From the posts I read it looks as if some are trying to figure out what God thinks.. Is that really up to us?

It is not up to a Christian to play God, no, but to try to grasp what his desires for his "flock" are? Well, hell yes, I would think that's not only appropriate but the whole reason any religion exists in the first place. Think "What would Jesus do?" and the like.

Matthew 7:3
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

Ah, but recall, I'm not a Christian and I don't follow the so-called Word of God; using scripture to take issue with my argument is a failed effort. If I allow it in good faith (no pun intended) for this single moment, I would say, I may carry my own faults as any human would, but in terms of my personal belief system, I feel justified and wholly accurate when I say I am no hypocrite in regards to my personal belief system (the fact that it isn't codified like Christianity makes it a damn sight easier, I'll be the first to admit)--I argue that the same can't be said for so-called Christians like Chris Tucker and Rene Russo.

If God thinks what CT is doing is wrong then that is between CT and God, not us.

Ah, but as a non-theist who doesn't swallow the story that Tucker and the like will one day face a judgment from on high, I think it's fully within my rights to laugh at the hypocrisy I accuse him and the like of practicing. You don't have to find hilarity in the same places I do.

Do I agree with him acting in movies that portray him as an ungodly man, no.. But that's not up to me to say he shouldn't be...

Interesting choice...if I say I'm a good Christian, would you, as an allegedly practicing Christian, still feel it was outside of your rights to have an opinion on my assertion?

tbird2340
05-10-05, 10:58 AM
You sure like saying "Ah"...

Well then I agree.. Anything Biblical I post you say doesn't "apply" to you so I guess it was my bad posting it..

gimmepilotwings
05-10-05, 10:58 AM
Filmmaker, you should also keep in mind that it is not up to you to judge Chris Tucker for the roles, actions that he takes in his life.

das Monkey
05-10-05, 10:58 AM
• Demontooth •

oh my
Ditto.

das

sracer
05-10-05, 10:59 AM
If God thinks what CT is doing is wrong then that is between CT and God, not us. Do I agree with him acting in movies that portray him as an ungodly man, no.. But that's not up to me to say he shouldn't be..

It is certainly an interesting situation to be in. Some believe that Christians should be cloistered away in the middle of no-where completely insulated from the evils of the world. Not only is it not practical... that view is unbiblical. Christians are IN the world, but not OF the world. We're called to be salt and light. We can't do that if we are isolated.

On the surface it may seem that CT's acting is in conflict with his faith. But it can be used as an opportunity to witness to others. It doesn't necessarily mean that between takes he whips out his Bible and starts reading on the set... it could be more subtle and approachable (and far more effective), like how he treats the people he works with. Extending a kind word or a helpful hand. In an industry that feeds self-centeredness, imagine how much a selfless attitude will stand out.

Sometimes we're put in potentially sinful situations so that our behavior and how we deal with them stands out as being different than the others... ideally, we should be dealing with it in a better way, others will see that, and want to know why we're different.

Filmmaker
05-10-05, 11:02 AM
Funny thing about those passages. I don't believe the word "shit" even existed yet. I suspect that God was much more concerned about what you are saying than what words you are using.

Since "shit" is considered by just human societal standards to be an obscene curse word, do you really mean to make the argument that God won't consider such language "defiling" the man who speaks it? Are you arguing that a pure, righteous statement can be made with usage of the word "shit"?

Some of those I don't think are really about "lust." And not all lust is sexual lust, but is basically a strong desire. And there can be "good lust", such as a lust for holiness. However, Lust <> Attracted to. I can think a girl is pretty without "lusting after her." I think lust is basically when the desire leads to temptation to do evil.

So Tucker didn't practice lasciviousness when he ogled the mass of women brought to pleasure him, the ones he from which he picked like fruit served up at in roadside cart? When he asked the female cop to flash her badge, then flash it again?

sracer
05-10-05, 11:02 AM
Filmmaker, you should also keep in mind that it is not up to you to judge Chris Tucker for the roles, actions that he takes in his life.
Judge? No. Correct? Maybe. Discern? Yes.

Throughout the New Testament there are ways to discern the state of a person's heart. It is important for believers to be able to discern those who merely talk-the-talk with those who walk-the-walk.

tbird2340
05-10-05, 11:03 AM
Filmmaker, you should also keep in mind that it is not up to you to judge Chris Tucker for the roles, actions that he takes in his life.

No no... He's not a Christian so he can judge anyone.. :shrug:

DodgingCars
05-10-05, 11:03 AM
It is certainly an interesting situation to be in. Some believe that Christians should be cloistered away in the middle of no-where completely insulated from the evils of the world. Not only is it not practical... that view is unbiblical. Christians are IN the world, but not OF the world. We're called to be salt and light. We can't do that if we are isolated.

On the surface it may seem that CT's acting is in conflict with his faith. But it can be used as an opportunity to witness to others. It doesn't necessarily mean that between takes he whips out his Bible and starts reading on the set... it could be more subtle and approachable (and far more effective), like how he treats the people he works with. Extending a kind word or a helpful hand. In an industry that feeds self-centeredness, imagine how much a selfless attitude will stand out.

Sometimes we're put in potentially sinful situations so that our behavior and how we deal with them stands out as being different than the others... ideally, we should be dealing with it in a better way, others will see that, and want to know why we're different.

Exactly.

vdadlani219
05-10-05, 11:14 AM
Wait a second...there's no black Christians.

Game, Set, Match.

gimmepilotwings
05-10-05, 11:23 AM
No no... He's not a Christian so he can judge anyone.. :shrug:

So whats the point of this thread then?

:scratch2:

sracer
05-10-05, 11:26 AM
Wait a second...there's no black Christians.

Game, Set, Match.
Oh... that would explain why the TEMPLE OF BLACK JESUS website was taken offline. :(

AndyCapps
05-10-05, 11:29 AM
The first time he smoked shit with Hector, he ended up in Deebo's pigeon coop in his damn drawers. The second time he smoked shit with Hector, he ended up in 10 movies with Jackie Chan. That's Angel Dust, Holmes!

I bet Dave Chapelle smoked shit with Hector too.

tasha99
05-10-05, 11:56 AM
Filmmaker is making huge assumptions about Christianity when he says that the Bible is the primary text for every Christian. I'm a Quaker and in the Society of Friends' belief (at least mine, I wouldn't assume this for everyone) the Bible is secondary to the inner light of God that exists in every human being.

He's also assuming that religion has to be about moral absolutes when that's only one of many things religion can be about.

:grouphug:

DodgingCars
05-10-05, 12:19 PM
Since "shit" is considered by just human societal standards to be an obscene curse word, do you really mean to make the argument that God won't consider such language "defiling" the man who speaks it? Are you arguing that a pure, righteous statement can be made with usage of the word "shit"?

I don't believe that "shit" in itself is obscene, no. I don't believe one needs to always speak "pure", whatever that means.

The Bible is telling people to watch what they say because it can either be hateful or lead to sin. (i.e. by boasting or insulting someone, you can insight a fight). I don't believe the Bible ever meant to codemn the use of any specific word, but instead to make Christians (actually, people) aware of their words and aware of the power of their words. When you get to the point where you are saying that saying "shit" is a sin, you're getting into legalism.


So Tucker didn't practice lasciviousness when he ogled the mass of women brought to pleasure him, the ones he from which he picked like fruit served up at in roadside cart? When he asked the female cop to flash her badge, then flash it again?

It's been awhile since I've seen Rush Hour, so I probably can't defend everything his character did. But, I would agree that doing a scene where he was supposed to have sex with a group of women (even if not shown) is probably not right thing for a Christian to do.

Filmmaker
05-10-05, 12:19 PM
Sometimes we're put in potentially sinful situations so that our behavior and how we deal with them stands out as being different than the others... ideally, we should be dealing with it in a better way, others will see that, and want to know why we're different.

sracer, thank you for making a legitimate effort to engage in intelligent dialogue with me, rather than some of the ill-thought knee-jerk-reaction replies I've been fielding. I see the merit in what you're saying, and I believe that there's a great deal of truth to it, if the Christian ideology proves to be the valid one when we leave this mortal coil, but one element does concern me greatly. At heart, you seem to argue that the ends justify the means. That it's okay for Chris Tucker to "sin" (and permanently, since his "sinful" words and actions will be committed to celluloid long after he's dead) in order to witness to other. He can be seen saying "shit" and long as he treats his co-workers with an unprecedented degree of respect and kindness. It's not my place to dictate God's terms, by any means, but I just don't see this approach as being defensible using scripture as the guide. He practices God's ethos with his co-workers, but espounds Satan's ethos with viewers of his films? Your thoughts?

He's not a Christian so he can judge anyone..

A fair and accurate point. I don't believe we answer to a higher power that has entreated us not to judge one another. I believe in the here and now, and when I die, I'm dust and bug food for all I'm aware, so the immdeiate now is my heaven, hell and purgatory all wrapped up into one. It's my reality, so I will judge its participants accordingly since the world under my feet and my fellow human brethren are all that make any difference to me.

So whats the point of this thread then?

As I stated from the outset, I'm playing devil's advocate. Since I have to live in an America choking under the stench of alleged piousness, then I feel compelled to call anyone who terms themselves Christian out for it when I see they are not standing by the tenets of their chosen faith. If I'm going to have to live/suffer in a Christian-biased nation, then I would at least take some measure of odd comfort knowing that those of the Christian faith stand against me out of a real and deep seated conviction in the absolute moral dictates of their god, not because they're just faking it to curry societal favor or to slip into heaven on a technicality.

DodgingCars
05-10-05, 12:23 PM
Filmmaker is making huge assumptions about Christianity when he says that the Bible is the primary text for every Christian. I'm a Quaker and in the Society of Friends' belief (at least mine, I wouldn't assume this for everyone) the Bible is secondary to the inner light of God that exists in every human being.

He's also assuming that religion has to be about moral absolutes when that's only one of many things religion can be about.

:grouphug:

I would actually disagree. I believe there are moral absolutes. I just believe that as flawed humans, we're not always able to determine what they are. That's why the Bible is important. It's God's word, laying the foundation for what's right or wrong.

I find the Quaker's view kind of interesting. I'm curious, if the Bible is 2nd to the leading of the Holy Spirit (i'm assuming that's what's meant by the inner light), do Quakers at least use the Bible to verify that what they're feeling/believing is from the Holy Spirit -- i.e. The Holy Spirit is leading me to kill my best friend -- oh wait, that can't be the HS, because the Bible says that murder is wrong.

Filmmaker
05-10-05, 12:23 PM
Filmmaker is making huge assumptions about Christianity when he says that the Bible is the primary text for every Christian. I'm a Quaker and in the Society of Friends' belief (at least mine, I wouldn't assume this for everyone) the Bible is secondary to the inner light of God that exists in every human being.

Without codification, I would argue that you're not dealing with true religion, merely spirituality. I won't question if you could call yourself a believer, but I would question you being able to rightfully term yourself a Christian. Remember, the Bible came before any Christian church. If any such church subverts the importance of the Bible, then I daresay you are worshipping the men who created that church and not the so-called Word of God.

He's also assuming that religion has to be about moral absolutes when that's only one of many things religion can be about.

Religion, yes; Christianity, no. This is not just my opinion. The Bible--again, the original framework upon which all of viable Christianity is built--has much room for interpretation, but little gray in terms of the absolute nature of God's morality.

kvrdave
05-10-05, 12:24 PM
So (and I'm playing--no irony intended--devil's advocate here, since I'm not a theist), it's okay to further a non-Christian ethic as long as you're in the guise of a character? Doesn't the Christian God demand you follow his precepts in all things? Doesn't he place his edicts above those that might be found in a screenplay, or a director's aesthetic? Do you mean to say that God is okay with you pressing the pause button on your beliefs, your pact with him, as it were, whenever the spotlight is aimed at you?


Yes, and this is why I have always disagreed with any actor who plays Satan.


:lol:

DodgingCars
05-10-05, 12:30 PM
sracer, thank you for making a legitimate effort to engage in intelligent dialogue with me, rather than some of the ill-thought knee-jerk-reaction replies I've been fielding. I see the merit in what you're saying, and I believe that there's a great deal of truth to it, if the Christian ideology proves to be the valid one when we leave this mortal coil, but one element does concern me greatly. At heart, you seem to argue that the ends justify the means. That it's okay for Chris Tucker to "sin" (and permanently, since his "sinful" words and actions will be committed to celluloid long after he's dead) in order to witness to other. He can be seen saying "shit" and long as he treats his co-workers with an unprecedented degree of respect and kindness. It's not my place to dictate God's terms, by any means, but I just don't see this approach as being defensible using scripture as the guide. He practices God's ethos with his co-workers, but espounds Satan's ethos with viewers of his films? Your thoughts?

You're still stuck on this idea that Tucker is sinning by doing these movie. He may be, but I think its definately a grey area. I think at best, some of the scenes he's done might have been a bad choice for a Christian to do, but then, even then is it wrong for a Christian to portray reality in films through acting (as someone else brought up). I don't think his actions are as black & white as you are trying to make them. And I don't think Tucker is automatically a hypocrite for playing the character he did in RH.

kvrdave
05-10-05, 12:33 PM
Since "shit" is considered by just human societal standards to be an obscene curse word, do you really mean to make the argument that God won't consider such language "defiling" the man who speaks it? Are you arguing that a pure, righteous statement can be made with usage of the word "shit"?


First I really wish I had gotten here early, but oh well.

Secondly, Do you really thing that eating meat sacraficed in the temple is something God would approve of? Same difference.

Filmmaker
05-10-05, 12:33 PM
I don't believe that "shit" in itself is obscene, no. I don't believe ones needs to always speak "pure", whatever that means.

The Bible is telling people to watch what they say because it can either be hateful or lead to sin. (i.e. buy boasting or insulting someone, you can insight a fight). I don't believe the Bible ever meant to codemn the use of any specific word, but instead to make Christians (actually, people) aware of their words and aware of the power of their words. When you get to the point where you are saying that saying "shit" is a sin, you're getting into legalism.

Firstly, I won't pass judgment on whether it's a "sin", since I don't believe in "sin", and in fact, would accuse God--as the creator of the heaven and the earth and all things in between--as having created "sin" along with it, if the Bible proves to be truth. But does it "defile" the man who speaks it? I would argue yes. At any rate, you've argued your point well enough that, though I don't agree with your final determination, I can at least walk away with the feeling that you've made your points clearly and with acceptable (though not perfect) reasoning, so thanks for your contribution to the debate. I'll take no more issue with you on this point (unless, of course, you want me to ;) ).

DodgingCars
05-10-05, 12:34 PM
Without codification, I would argue that you're not dealing with true religion, merely spirituality. I won't question if you could call yourself a believer, but I would question you being able to rightfully term yourself a Christian. Remember, the Bible came before any Christian church. If any such church subverts the importance of the Bible, then I daresay you are worshipping the men who created that church and not the so-called Word of God.



Religion, yes; Christianity, no. This is not just my opinion. The Bible--again, the original framework upon which all of viable Christianity is built--has much room for interpretation, but little gray in terms of the absolute nature of God's morality.

I find it interesting that as a self-proclaimed non-Christian/non-theist (agnostic, basically), that you are not only defining what it is to be a Christian, but you're going as far as calling certain denomination heretical!

DodgingCars
05-10-05, 12:36 PM
and in fact, would accuse God--as the creator of the heaven and the earth and all things in between--as having created "sin" along with it, if the Bible proves to be truth.

I'll only take issue with this. God did not create sin. God created free-will, or he gave the ability of human to go against his will. Sin is, basically, denying God's will.

DodgingCars
05-10-05, 12:37 PM
Ok.. dave and sracer are here, I'll actually go get some work done. :)

kvrdave
05-10-05, 12:38 PM
Firstly, I won't pass judgment on whether it's a "sin", since I don't believe in "sin", and in fact, would accuse God--as the creator of the heaven and the earth and all things in between--as having created "sin" along with it, if the Bible proves to be truth. But does it "defile" the man who speaks it? I would argue yes.

But since you like scripture so much, here is Matthew 18:16-20
16"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. 17"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' "

Sure seems like the mere act of saying "shit" isn't was is sinful, but rather a person's heart and reasons for saying it. You take an awful legalistic view of the Bible, but I suppose that is common, especially in trying to win a debate with scripture.

kvrdave
05-10-05, 12:38 PM
Ok.. dave and sracer are here, I'll actually go get some work done. :)

But I want to play poker :(

uberjoe
05-10-05, 12:39 PM
I find it interesting that as a self-proclaimed non-Christian/non-theist (agnostic, basically), that you are not only defining what it is to be a Christian, but you're going as far as calling certain denomination heretical!

So because he is not a Christian, he cannot make observations about Christianity, and reach conclusions based on those observations? Am I reading that right?

kvrdave
05-10-05, 12:42 PM
So because he is not a Christian, he cannot make observations about Christianity, and reach conclusions based on those observations? Am I reading that right?


I guess I would want to know the motives of trying to show that a person is doing what he is suppose to do as a Christian. No Christian would claim to be perfect, and every one still makes mistakes, bad choices, etc. So is it to actually try to help Chris Tucker in his Christian life, or is it to take a jab a Christianity?

uberjoe
05-10-05, 12:49 PM
I guess I would want to know the motives of trying to show that a person is doing what he is suppose to do as a Christian. No Christian would claim to be perfect, and every one still makes mistakes, bad choices, etc. So is it to actually try to help Chris Tucker in his Christian life, or is it to take a jab a Christianity?

I can't speak for the OP, but I personally believe that in regards to the concept of sin, intent (what's in the heart) is more important than the methods. In other words: yes, I think you can practice Christianity and still do "un-Christian" things while playing a role in a movie. If God does exist, I like to think he understands the concept of nuance.

My problem with the post I responded to was the implication that only Christians can judge what is "Christian." It seems to me that there are enough Christians out there spreading their version of The Word that outside observers can reach a few conclusions.

Filmmaker
05-10-05, 12:53 PM
I find it interesting that as a self-proclaimed non-Christian/non-theist (agnostic, basically), that you are not only defining what it is to be a Christian, but you're going as far as calling certain denomination heretical!

Okay, I'm getting the sense no one's heard of the term "playing devil's advocate"... :rolleyes:

sracer
05-10-05, 12:54 PM
sracer, thank you for making a legitimate effort to engage in intelligent dialogue with me, rather than some of the ill-thought knee-jerk-reaction replies I've been fielding. I see the merit in what you're saying, and I believe that there's a great deal of truth to it, if the Christian ideology proves to be the valid one when we leave this mortal coil, but one element does concern me greatly. At heart, you seem to argue that the ends justify the means. That it's okay for Chris Tucker to "sin" (and permanently, since his "sinful" words and actions will be committed to celluloid long after he's dead) in order to witness to other. He can be seen saying "shit" and long as he treats his co-workers with an unprecedented degree of respect and kindness. It's not my place to dictate God's terms, by any means, but I just don't see this approach as being defensible using scripture as the guide. He practices God's ethos with his co-workers, but espounds Satan's ethos with viewers of his films? Your thoughts?
I apologize if I made it sound like "the ends justify the means". That was not my intention at all.

At the risk of getting all theological, let me say that there is a difference between sin and the consequences of sin. IF, Chris Tucker sinned (by making an R rated film), that is different than the consequences of that sin (the resulting film that will most likely exist long after Chris Tucker is gone).

Christians are accountable for the sin itself... not the consequences of it. God can use the consequences of sin to be a reminder to us. I'm sure if the Holy Spirit convicts CT that making the film was a sin, then he will have that as a lasting reminder not to do THAT again. I'm sure all believers can look back at their lives and have an example of the consequences of a sin outlive the sin itself, or the people who commited it.

Consider the possible consequences of the sin of adultery or fornication... the conception of a child. That child would then be born, and grow up... who can tell what will happen as a result? That child could grow to be a person of faith helping others. A quick look at Jesus' ancestry will show some unsavory characters in His family tree. :)

All this to say, God knows that believers are not perfect. He doesn't expect it from us. But He does expect us to do what we can to draw closer to living a life that He wants us to. And when we sin, (yes believers still sin... just hopefully not as chronically or as grieviously as before) God can use the consequences of that sin for His purposes.

I haven't watched any of the RUSH HOUR films so I don't know to what extent if any those films glorify a lifestyle contrary to Christian living. The mere depiction of such a lifestyle isn't sufficient, IMO, to merit it being "sinful". GLORIFYING such a lifestyle would. (in a similar manner, the Old Testament describes acts of murder and adultery, but those accounts don't glorify those acts... nor condone them.)

Filmmaker
05-10-05, 12:55 PM
I'll only take issue with this. God did not create sin. God created free-will, or he gave the ability of human to go against his will. Sin is, basically, denying God's will.

But if he created that option, then he brought about the ability for man to practice "sin". "Sin" became his creation as "that which is unlike God".

Filmmaker
05-10-05, 12:56 PM
Sure seems like the mere act of saying "shit" isn't was is sinful, but rather a person's heart and reasons for saying it. You take an awful legalistic view of the Bible, but I suppose that is common, especially in trying to win a debate with scripture.

So you argue that someone can say a curse word and have it come from a holy, pure place in his heart?

Filmmaker
05-10-05, 02:01 PM
I guess I would want to know the motives of trying to show that a person is doing what he is suppose to do as a Christian. No Christian would claim to be perfect, and every one still makes mistakes, bad choices, etc. So is it to actually try to help Chris Tucker in his Christian life, or is it to take a jab a Christianity?

I'm not interested in taking a jab at Christianity because how Chris Tucker and Rene Russo handle the task of remaining pious is no reflection on the religion to which they've chosen allegiance. Neither am I trying to help Chris Tucker in his Christian life; I'd have neither the desire to help someone remain under the cloud of religious nonsense, nor the education. I'm simply, basically, only calling out hypocrisy. It was a one-off statement about how this brand of Christian hypocrisy amuses me--it was your fellow DVDTalkers that wanted to run with it.

DodgingCars
05-10-05, 02:04 PM
Okay, I'm getting the sense no one's heard of the term "playing devil's advocate"... :rolleyes:

I know the term, but imo, that's not what you're doing. You're setting the rules for the other side.

Filmmaker
05-10-05, 02:06 PM
I apologize if I made it sound like "the ends justify the means". That was not my intention at all.

At the risk of getting all theological, let me say that there is a difference between sin and the consequences of sin. IF, Chris Tucker sinned (by making an R rated film), that is different than the consequences of that sin (the resulting film that will most likely exist long after Chris Tucker is gone).

Christians are accountable for the sin itself... not the consequences of it. God can use the consequences of sin to be a reminder to us. I'm sure if the Holy Spirit convicts CT that making the film was a sin, then he will have that as a lasting reminder not to do THAT again. I'm sure all believers can look back at their lives and have an example of the consequences of a sin outlive the sin itself, or the people who commited it.

Consider the possible consequences of the sin of adultery or fornication... the conception of a child. That child would then be born, and grow up... who can tell what will happen as a result? That child could grow to be a person of faith helping others. A quick look at Jesus' ancestry will show some unsavory characters in His family tree. :)

All this to say, God knows that believers are not perfect. He doesn't expect it from us. But He does expect us to do what we can to draw closer to living a life that He wants us to. And when we sin, (yes believers still sin... just hopefully not as chronically or as grieviously as before) God can use the consequences of that sin for His purposes.

I haven't watched any of the RUSH HOUR films so I don't know to what extent if any those films glorify a lifestyle contrary to Christian living. The mere depiction of such a lifestyle isn't sufficient, IMO, to merit it being "sinful". GLORIFYING such a lifestyle would. (in a similar manner, the Old Testament describes acts of murder and adultery, but those accounts don't glorify those acts... nor condone them.)

Interesting points. I would say the real "proof in the pudding" will be what Chris Tucker is willing to do or associate himself with in RUSH HOUR 3 and all his films to come. I would argue that there would have to be some fine-tuning in terms of language and sexual suggestion to pass what I read as Biblical muster. If not, then even though value can come out of his "sin" for others, so can harm, and either way, Mr. Tucker would still be guilty of Christian hypocrisy. I'm not saying it'll keep him out of heaven, if there be such a place, by any means, but it will add to his list of "sins" for which to be held accountable.

DodgingCars
05-10-05, 02:07 PM
But if he created that option, then he brought about the ability for man to practice "sin". "Sin" became his creation as "that which is unlike God".

I disagree. I believe he only created the possibility for sin to occur, but man, by his own free will created the sin itself.

That's like saying that I'm a murderer because I created a weapon that someone else used to murder someone with.

Filmmaker
05-10-05, 02:09 PM
I disagree. I believe he only created the possibility for sin to occur, but man, by his own free will created the sin itself.

That's like saying that I murdered someone by creating a weapon that someone else used to murder someone with.

No, by your own logic, it means God created the sin (the weapon). How much easier to have not even made the sin (knife), than to hold people accountable for using it.

Filmmaker
05-10-05, 02:09 PM
I know the term, but imo, that's not what you're doing. You're setting the rules for the other side.

I'm using scripture to defend all my assertions--how am I inventing the rules if they've already been laid out for 2,000 years???

DodgingCars
05-10-05, 02:10 PM
So you argue that someone can say a curse word and have it come from a holy, pure place in his heart?

Does everything one says have to be holy and pure? If I say, I want a hamburger -- is that from a holy and pure place in my heart? Well maybe, because hamburgers are heavenly... :)

If I say, I need to take a big shit. Is it really a sin? I think if I say it in front of people who are easily offended by such language, then yes it is, because I'm not showing love to them by purposely offending them.

I thought you were going to drop this arguement?

DodgingCars
05-10-05, 02:12 PM
I'm using scripture to defend all my assertions--how am I inventing the rules if they've already been laid out for 2,000 years???

1) You're assuming that all Christians practice the same.
2) You're assuming that all Christians interpret scripture the same.
3) You're actually telling people they aren't "real Christians" if they don't fit your perception of Christianity.

etc. etc. etc.

DodgingCars
05-10-05, 02:14 PM
No, by your own logic, it means God created the sin (the weapon). How much easier to have not even made the sin (knife), than to hold people accountable for using it.

No, by my logic, the weapon is not sin. It is a weapon. The murder is the sin.

I'll make my anology simpler. Weapon = free will. Murder = sin.

God merely created the ability for sin to occur by giving man free will. That is, he allowed people to make decisions, thoughts, actions that are contrary to his will. Those things that are contrary to his will are sin.

The alternative would be that God create men to only be able to do his will, which would mean that all men would essentially be robots.

DodgingCars
05-10-05, 02:18 PM
Interesting points. I would say the real "proof in the pudding" will be what Chris Tucker is willing to do or associate himself with in RUSH HOUR 3 and all his films to come. I would argue that there would have to be some fine-tuning in terms of language and sexual suggestion to pass what I read as Biblical muster. If not, then even though value can come out of his "sin" for others, so can harm, and either way, Mr. Tucker would still be guilty of Christian hypocrisy. I'm not saying it'll keep him out of heaven, if there be such a place, by any means, but it will add to his list of "sins" for which to be held accountable.

I certainly think that any Christian needs to be careful about their actions. And Christians actors need to be careful about the roles they take and the films they are in. I think they need to be careful about coming off as advocating certain behavior. But I also think it's not as black and white as you'd like to make it.

kvrdave
05-10-05, 02:18 PM
So you argue that someone can say a curse word and have it come from a holy, pure place in his heart?

Actually, that is what Martin Luther argued.

Most likely it has to do with what someone find offensive or believes to be offensive. Other than cursing with the name of the Lord in it, I don't find any cursing offensive, yet I would also not do it in front of people who I thought might find it offensive. That is basically what Paul said about meat offered in the Temple.

kvrdave
05-10-05, 02:20 PM
I'm not interested in taking a jab at Christianity because how Chris Tucker and Rene Russo handle the task of remaining pious is no reflection on the religion to which they've chosen allegiance. Neither am I trying to help Chris Tucker in his Christian life; I'd have neither the desire to help someone remain under the cloud of religious nonsense, nor the education. I'm simply, basically, only calling out hypocrisy. It was a one-off statement about how this brand of Christian hypocrisy amuses me--it was your fellow DVDTalkers that wanted to run with it.

Ah, the old "it takes a Christian to be a hypocrite" line. Well, there's always room for one more. -wink-

DodgingCars
05-10-05, 02:32 PM
Filmmaker,

This isn't meant to be a cop-out, but merely the truth. Christians try to follow the Bible. They try to do the will of God. They try to make the right decisions. They try to not screw up. But no matter how much they try, they will screw up, they will make the wrong decisions, they will disobey God, and they will sin. It's inevitable.

But that is the beauty of Jesus Christ. He died on the cross for the sin of the world. God's grace is sufficient to cover all sins, all mess-ups, all wrong decisions.

Is Chris Tucker a hypocrite? Yes. Is he a sinner? Absolutely. We all are. But it doesn't matter, he can be comforted knowing that God's grace is sufficient.

A Christian life isn't an instant change from sinner to saint. It's a lifelong process. All Christians are hypocrites, because no Christian can live up to the perfect life that Jesus lead. But that's why Jesus came... to free man. To lift the burden of trying to be perfect by following rules. We can't be perfect by anything we do, but we can be made perfect through Christ.

sracer
05-10-05, 02:36 PM
Interesting points. I would say the real "proof in the pudding" will be what Chris Tucker is willing to do or associate himself with in RUSH HOUR 3 and all his films to come. I would argue that there would have to be some fine-tuning in terms of language and sexual suggestion to pass what I read as Biblical muster. If not, then even though value can come out of his "sin" for others, so can harm, and either way, Mr. Tucker would still be guilty of Christian hypocrisy. I'm not saying it'll keep him out of heaven, if there be such a place, by any means, but it will add to his list of "sins" for which to be held accountable.

As believers, we have tremendous freedoms. But with those freedoms come tremendous responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to avoid doing anything that would cause a brother or sister to stumble. As to what the specific situations are, is something that believers pray that God's Holy Spirit will reveal to us. WISDOM and DISCERNMENT is something that I pray for practically every day.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but If you aren't a believer, you are not fully equipped to use the Bible to discern Christian living. (there's even a few verses that talk about that... I don't have them handy) Yes, a non-believer can read the Gospels and receive the message of Salvation through Jesus, but that's pretty much where the Bible ends for non-believers.

Case in point, believers look to letter to the Ephesians chapter 5 and take great comfort and confidence in knowing God's plan for marriage and the roles that husbands and wives play. The reason why non-believers go ape over those same verses is because they are not seeing them in the light of God's grace, mercy, and love. They lack the "spiritual eyeglasses" to see those verses in the proper light.

As for "Christian Hypocracy", I would be interested in hearing Chris Tucker's rationale for making an R-rated film. I am open to the possibility that there is a very good reason. But the bottom line is, he is responsible for his decisions.
And unless he sinned against me, or I have a chance to have lunch with him, there isn't much that I can (or should) do about it.

DodgingCars
05-10-05, 02:40 PM
As for "Christian Hypocracy", I would be interested in hearing Chris Tucker's rationale for making an R-rated film. I am open to the possibility that there is a very good reason. But the bottom line is, he is responsible for his decisions.
And unless he sinned against me, or I have a chance to have lunch with him, there isn't much that I can (or should) do about it.

Shouldn't why its "R-rated" be a factor? But Chris Tucker hasn't been in an R-rated film since Jackie Brown (1997), about 8 years ago -- which was probably in production in 1995 or 1996.

Filmmaker
05-10-05, 02:41 PM
Does everything one says have to be holy and pure? If I say, I want a hamburger -- is that from a holy and pure place in my heart? Well maybe, because hamburgers are heavenly... :)

If I say, I need to take a big shit. Is it really a sin? I think if I say it in front of people who are easily offended by such language, then yes it is, because I'm not showing love to them by purposely offending them.

I thought you were going to drop this arguement?

I made that pact with you, not kvrdave. Since you're not interesting in letting the sleeping dog lie, I'll make it really clear--no one considers "hamburger" to be a curse word; even people comfortable with blue language concur that "shit" is a curse word. And it's stil a "sin" whether your company is offended or not, because you're defiling yourself in the eyes of God. You're putting filth out into the world, whether your company is a willing receptor or not.

sracer
05-10-05, 02:43 PM
Filmmaker,

This isn't meant to be a cop-out, but merely the truth. Christians try to follow the Bible. They try to do the will of God. They try to make the right decisions. They try to not screw up. But no matter how much they try, they will screw up, they will make the wrong decisions, they will disobey God, and they will sin. It's inevitable.

But that is the beauty of Jesus Christ. He died on the cross for the sin of the world. God's grace is sufficient to cover all sins, all mess-ups, all wrong decisions.

Is Chris Tucker a hypocrite? Yes. Is he a sinner? Absolutely. We all are. But it doesn't matter, he can be comforted knowing that God's grace is sufficient.

A Christian life isn't an instant change from sinner to saint. It's a lifelong process. All Christians are hypocrites, because no Christian can live up to the perfect life that Jesus lead. But that's why Jesus came... to free man. To lift the burden of trying to be perfect by following rules. We can't be perfect by anything we do, but we can be made perfect through Christ.

Very well said! :thumbsup:
It is unfortunate that there is a lunatic fringe out there, professing to be Christians that have twisted the Gospel message for their own selfish purposes. Snake-oil salesmen selling salvation as "Instant Perfection!... just add (holy) water." Instant financial success! Instant life in a land of milk and honey!

If more people realized that it isn't about religion, but about a relationship, there would be many more happy people (Christians and non alike)

kvrdave
05-10-05, 02:44 PM
I made that pact with you, not kvrdave.

kvrdave get's left out of everything. :(

DodgingCars
05-10-05, 02:44 PM
I made that pact with you, not kvrdave. Since you're not interesting in letting the sleeping dog lie, I'll make it really clear--no one considers "hamburger" to be a curse word; even people comfortable with blue language concur that "shit" is a curse word. And it's stil a "sin" whether your company is offended or not, because you're defiling yourself in the eyes of God. You're putting filth out into the world, whether your company is a willing receptor or not.

And my arguement is "So what?" I don't think the Bible addresses "curse words" but instead "rotten language." Back to my original point on this whole curse word thing. God is more concerned with WHAT you say, not what words you say. The word "shit", on it's own, meand absolutetly nothing. In context, it can be very benign.

sracer
05-10-05, 02:45 PM
Shouldn't why its "R-rated" be a factor? But Chris Tucker hasn't been in an R-rated film since Jackie Brown (1997), about 8 years ago -- which was probably in production in 1995 or 1996.
Beats me. I've never followed Chris Tucker's career so I don't know what was "R", "G", "PG" or what. :)

uberjoe
05-10-05, 02:50 PM
3) You're actually telling people they aren't "real Christians" if they don't fit your perception of Christianity.

...and that's best left to other Christians. Or is it "Christians"?

Filmmaker
05-10-05, 02:50 PM
1) You're assuming that all Christians practice the same.
2) You're assuming that all Christians interpret scripture the same.
3) You're actually telling people they aren't "real Christians" if they don't fit your perception of Christianity.

etc. etc. etc.

I like this approach--it is simple and unclouded. I'll make my replies similar:

1) If they do not, then they are prioritizing their concerns over the Word of God as laid out in the Bible. If it is in the Bible, ALL denominations of Christians should hold it as an absolute, if they truly believe it to be the Word of God. If they don't, what is the basis of their Christian faith?

2) As I already stated, anyone who sees gray in the scriptures I quoted is trying to get blood from a turnip. Much of the scriptures are open to interpretations but (without wittingly staging a weak argument) I challenge you to show me how the scriptures I quoted are.

3) If "my perception" is that I hold Christians accountable to what God advises them through the Bible, then I am telling them they're hypocritical Christians. Whether they're "real" Christians, only a Christian God could say, but I can make a judgment of hypocrisy.

uberjoe
05-10-05, 02:52 PM
I think the real question here is: why does Chris Tucker talk like that? Is it a disorder or something?

Filmmaker
05-10-05, 02:53 PM
And my arguement is "So what?" I don't think the Bible addresses "curse words" but instead "rotten language." Back to my original point on this whole curse word thing. God is more concerned with WHAT you say, not what words you say. The word "shit", on it's own, meand absolutetly nothing. In context, it can be very benign.

I don't see how I can further clarify where I think your reasoning is faulty here, so rather than argue in a circular manner, I'll just agree to disagree. I will also say, being that you find "shit" to have benign applications, I'd love it if someone made you chairman of the FCC. Now, that would be my kind of TV watching!

Brain Stew
05-10-05, 02:53 PM
And my arguement is "So what?" I don't think the Bible addresses "curse words" but instead "rotten language." Back to my original point on this whole curse word thing. God is more concerned with WHAT you say, not what words you say. The word "shit", on it's own, meand absolutetly nothing. In context, it can be very benign.
Exactly, I think people need to look up the definition of profanity and obscenity or their root words: profane and obscene.

pro·fane (adj) - Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.

ob·scene (adj.) - Offensive to accepted standards of decency or modesty.

So you see blasphemy is profane, while "swearing" is obscene. Ergo, "swearing" is not against God or his laws.

kvrdave
05-10-05, 02:54 PM
...and that's best left to other Christians. Or is it "Christians"?

:lol: I looked at that for a full minute to see if they were spelled differently.

Filmmaker
05-10-05, 02:54 PM
I think the real question here is: why does Chris Tucker talk like that? Is it a disorder or something?

Perhaps God is punishing him for his "sins" by laying the judgment on him of a deviated septum.

kvrdave
05-10-05, 02:56 PM
I don't see how I can further clarify where I think your reasoning is faulty here, so rather than argue in a circular manner, I'll just agree to disagree. I will also say, being that you find "shit" to have benign applications, I'd love it if someone made you chairman of the FCC. Now, that would be my kind of TV watching!

C'mon, surely you don't take the position that curse words don't change their "benigness" over time. Look at what is permissable now as compared to 20 years ago. The fact is, many people simply aren't offended by words like they use to be. Some things within a culture change, and our ability to be offended by vocabulary is one of them.

Filmmaker
05-10-05, 02:58 PM
Exactly, I think people need to look up the definition of profanity and obscenity or their root words: profane and obscene.

pro·fane (adj) - Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.

ob·scene (adj.) - Offensive to accepted standards of decency or modesty.

So you see blasphemy is profane, while "swearing" is obscene. Ergo, "swearing" is not against God or his laws.

Brain Stew! Well done, my man! Very well done, and I bow to your meticulous research. I still feel there's room to make the counter-argument that God is warning against putting filth out onto the world (whether it be obscene or profane) because it not only makes the world he allegedly created for us filthy, but also the speaker in return, but I daresay yours is the best and most concisive argument yet made. Kudos!

kvrdave
05-10-05, 03:02 PM
And he used the term "ergo." :lol:

PopcornTreeCt
05-10-05, 03:15 PM
After reading Filmmaker's posts I am most grateful for finding God. I will say no more of his posts for fear of him twisting my words around to meet his own twisted agenda. :)

Filmmaker
05-10-05, 03:20 PM
C'mon, surely you don't take the position that curse words don't change their "benigness" over time. Look at what is permissable now as compared to 20 years ago. The fact is, many people simply aren't offended by words like they use to be. Some things within a culture change, and our ability to be offended by vocabulary is one of them.

Yes, but your falling back on that argument of human values taking precedence over God's. If we're arguing about the value of Christianity as an accurate and meaningful religion, then God's values HAVE to take precedence. The argument of "the world is different now from when the Bible was written" has no moral weight--WE changed the world, NOT God, and if God believed his commandments to be flexible according to cultural changes, I'm sure he would have published THE BIBLE, PART II: THE BIG GUY STRIKES BACK by now...

kvrdave
05-10-05, 03:23 PM
Yes, but your falling back on that argument of human values taking precedence over God's. If we're arguing about the value of Christianity as an accurate and meaningful religion, then God's values HAVE to take precedence. The argument of "the world is different now from when the Bible was written" has no moral weight--WE changed the world, NOT God, and if God believed his commandments to be flexible according to cultural changes, I'm sure he would have published THE BIBLE, PART II: THE BIG GUY STRIKES BACK by now...

The argument has absolute weight if we decided something was moral or not. Some Catholics may still believe that it is immoral to not eat fish on Friday. That doesn't make it so. We decided that shit and fuck were bad words. The only word that seems to be against God's law is taking his name in vain.

Filmmaker
05-10-05, 03:24 PM
Yeah, I'm out to getcha, PopcornTreeCt, guard your women and children--the heathen have broken loose again!

Minor Threat
05-10-05, 03:25 PM
Yes, but your falling back on that argument of human values taking precedence over God's. If we're arguing about the value of Christianity as an accurate and meaningful religion, then God's values HAVE to take precedence. The argument of "the world is different now from when the Bible was written" has no moral weight--WE changed the world, NOT God, and if God believed his commandments to be flexible according to cultural changes, I'm sure he would have published THE BIBLE, PART II: THE BIG GUY STRIKES BACK by now...

Filmmaker - (I haven't had time to read the whole thread) are you not taking into consideration that his previous roles in these movies deemed "un-christian" may have been before he found his spirituality and he may now have asked for forgiveness in his spiritual path?

Filmmaker
05-10-05, 03:35 PM
The argument has absolute weight if we decided something was moral or not. Some Catholics may still believe that it is immoral to not eat fish on Friday. That doesn't make it so. We decided that shit and fuck were bad words. The only word that seems to be against God's law is taking his name in vain.

But again, God speaks to "defiling"...I simply think it stands to reason that if society as a whole (unlike the fish example) views a word as obscene, God likely would, as well. Sure, I'm making a judgment call on behalf of a being I don't even buy into the existence of, but it seems a fair one...

Filmmaker
05-10-05, 03:37 PM
Minor Threat, I did acknowledge that, yes. I mentioned that I was not aware of when Tucker's "enlightenment" (ahem) came to pass--for all I know, it may have been a week prior to seeing him on a religious station--but what he does from this point forward in his career will be of critical concern.

kvrdave
05-10-05, 03:41 PM
But again, God speaks to "defiling"...I simply think it stands to reason that if society as a whole (unlike the fish example) views a word as obscene, God likely would, as well. Sure, I'm making a judgment call on behalf of a being I don't even buy into the existence of, but it seems a fair one...

Which is exactly what Paul talks about with meat sacrificed in the Temple. There is nothing inherently wrong with eating it, but if you think it is going to offend someone, wait until they leave. Paul basically says don't put that type of stumbling block in front of someone whose faith isn't as strong as yours might be, but the point is the same.

I think you logic that if the world sees something as obscene, then God would, is very much wrong. That would effectively mean that we decide what is proper and what is not, and not God who does. He would judge the intent, and the spirit of the comment, not the dialect (from what I have read in the Bible).

Minor Threat
05-10-05, 03:46 PM
Minor Threat, I did acknowledge that, yes. I mentioned that I was not aware of when Tucker's "enlightenment" (ahem) came to pass--for all I know, it may have been a week prior to seeing him on a religious station--but what he does from this point forward in his career will be of critical concern.

Okay - I agree with you on that point.

gimmepilotwings
05-10-05, 03:49 PM
Whether they're "real" Christians, only a Christian God could say, but I can make a judgment of hypocrisy.



Because God gave you your free will, this is true. Yet, you are a sinner for passing judgment on someone else. See the circular logic here?

tasha99
05-10-05, 03:52 PM
Without codification, I would argue that you're not dealing with true religion, merely spirituality. I won't question if you could call yourself a believer, but I would question you being able to rightfully term yourself a Christian. Remember, the Bible came before any Christian church. If any such church subverts the importance of the Bible, then I daresay you are worshipping the men who created that church and not the so-called Word of God.



Religion, yes; Christianity, no. This is not just my opinion. The Bible--again, the original framework upon which all of viable Christianity is built--has much room for interpretation, but little gray in terms of the absolute nature of God's morality.

I guess I won't take it personally that you consider my church neither Christian nor religious. Is it your argument that Quakers aren't Christians because most of Christianity is more dogmatic and ritualistic than we are?* Christianity is defined by the majority?

The Old Testament came before the Christian church, but the church that was Jesus and his disciples came before the New Testament (I would argue that the church began with Adam and Eve, actually, and later the Israelites--they were a community of God's people before they were written about. If you consider that the Christian church, then it too predated the Bible). And no, placing more importance on the Spirit rather than a book doesn't mean I'm worshipping the men who created the church; it means that I see Christ as present on earth today inside of everyone. Meeting is very much about listening to God rather than men, which is one reason it is silent unless someone feels moved to stand up and speak about what they heard in their heart.



*I don't mean "dogmatic" in a negative way here; just in the sense that most popular Christian religions have more "authority" in their church--ie, a pastor, priest, etc.,or authority from the Bible. And more ritual in the form of baptism, communion, etc. I don't see these as negative-heck, my son goes to Catholic school--but the words have taken on negative connotations and I don't mean them that way.

Filmmaker
05-10-05, 04:20 PM
I think you logic that if the world sees something as obscene, then God would, is very much wrong. That would effectively mean that we decide what is proper and what is not, and not God who does. He would judge the intent, and the spirit of the comment, not the dialect (from what I have read in the Bible).

A fair point, and one which I can concede. Though my knee jerk reaction is against a scenario wherein all humans would say, "that is wrong" and God would say, "naw, man, I'm cool wit it!", but again, anything's possible.

Filmmaker
05-10-05, 04:21 PM
Because God gave you your free will, this is true. Yet, you are a sinner for passing judgment on someone else. See the circular logic here?

No, because you're using Christian dogma against me, who doesn't buy into it. I'm not a sinner in my own eyes if I don't believe in sin.

kvrdave
05-10-05, 04:22 PM
A fair point, and one which I can concede. Though my knee jerk reaction is against a scenario wherein all humans would say, "that is wrong" and God would say, "naw, man, I'm cool wit it!", but again, anything's possible.

I would say that looking at humans in the Bible as a guide, that is probably closer to the norm. We tend to become very legalistic, etc. so that everything is black and white. The things done by Jesus were generally disapproved of by the religious leaders of the time, and quite often by "society."

Filmmaker
05-10-05, 04:37 PM
I guess I won't take it personally that you consider my church neither Christian nor religious.

This is faulty--I distinctly wrote "Religion, yes; Christianity, no".

Is it your argument that Quakers aren't Christians because most of Christianity is more dogmatic and ritualistic than we are?* Christianity is defined by the majority?

It is my argument that, for Christians, the Bible is meant to represent the Word of God, which by its very nature, must be made paramount or the religion ceases to have any validity unto itself; therefore, any church that would subordinate the importance of God's Word for ANY other factor fails to earn the right of being considered accurately Christian. A religion, yes, sure, but not one of Christ.

The Old Testament came before the Christian church

But by its very name, Christianity wasn't born until its namesake was.

the church that was Jesus and his disciples came before the New Testament

As would be necessary since Christianity was built off of Christ's teaching and adventures.

If you consider that the Christian church, then it too predated the Bible).

I do not since, again, Christianity and its church forms cannot pre-date Christ. The name of the religion itself tells you everything.

And no, placing more importance on the Spirit rather than a book doesn't mean I'm worshipping the men who created the church; it means that I see Christ as present on earth today inside of everyone.

And here again, we have the umpteenth example of a so-called Christian defining her religion, rather than allowing it to define her.

Filmmaker
05-10-05, 04:39 PM
I would say that looking at humans in the Bible as a guide, that is probably closer to the norm. We tend to become very legalistic, etc. so that everything is black and white. The things done by Jesus were generally disapproved of by the religious leaders of the time, and quite often by "society."

I find it a bit of a stretch to compare the revolutionary nature of Jesus's teachings vis-a-vis the society of 33 A.D. with current society's views on foul language vis-a-vis God's perspective in the year 2005, but again, you make a fair, if thin, point.

kvrdave
05-10-05, 04:49 PM
... but again, you make a fair, if thin, point.

thanks?


:lol:

tasha99
05-10-05, 04:57 PM
This is faulty--I distinctly wrote "Religion, yes; Christianity, no".

But you also wrote "Without codification, I would argue that you're not dealing with true religion, merely spirituality. "



It is my argument that, for Christians, the Bible is meant to represent the Word of God, which by its very nature, must be made paramount or the religion ceases to have any validity unto itself; therefore, any church that would subordinate the importance of God's Word for ANY other factor fails to earn the right of being considered accurately Christian. A religion, yes, sure, but not one of Christ.

But obviously people interpret the bible differently. It can't be as accurate as what the Spirit says.



But by its very name, Christianity wasn't born until its namesake was.

As would be necessary since Christianity was built off of Christ's teaching and adventures.

I'll give you that (though I consider the people of the Old Testament brought in now). My point is that the bible as a whole (including the New Testament) didn't really predate the church as you claim.



And here again, we have the umpteenth example of a so-called Christian defining her religion, rather than allowing it to define her.

No, for the umpteenth example in this thread we have a non-Christian attempting to define Christianity to fit his mold of what he imagines it should be.

madara
05-10-05, 05:02 PM
Maybe he just believes in God and is not drowned in his own rightwingedness?? But you said 700 club though right? ...gulp

uberjoe
05-10-05, 05:05 PM
But obviously people interpret the bible differently. It can't be as accurate as what the Spirit says.

But you're making your own interpretation of what the spirit says, aren't you? At least when people debate the intent of the Bible they can all look at the same text.

uberjoe
05-10-05, 05:10 PM
No, for the umpteenth example in this thread we have a non-Christian attempting to define Christianity to fit his mold of what he imagines it should be.

And I ask again: can only Christians decide what is, and is not, Christian behavior?

Filmmaker
05-10-05, 05:23 PM
But you also wrote "Without codification, I would argue that you're not dealing with true religion, merely spirituality. "

You're right, I did. I usually consider the word "religion" to be applicable if a god or gods is being worshipped, but I do maintain that a religion without codification is rather groundless. It becomes too free-form to fall under a meaningful label, so yes, at the core of the point, I would say worship of a deity or deities without codification of said diety's commandments and morality for the human race is more accurately classified as a type of spirituality than an actual religion.

But obviously people interpret the bible differently. It can't be as accurate as what the Spirit says.

So said David Koresh.

I'll give you that (though I consider the people of the Old Testament brought in now). My point is that the bible as a whole (including the New Testament) didn't really predate the church as you claim.

I daresay you've failed to make that point. Random believers (which is what existed in Old Testament times) do not make a church. The Christian church, in any of its denominations and forms, cannot and did not exist before the death of Christ.

No, for the umpteenth example in this thread we have a non-Christian attempting to define Christianity to fit his mold of what he imagines it should be.

Care to effectively address my assertion, rather than ducking it?

DodgingCars
05-10-05, 05:48 PM
Filmmaker,

At this point, I'd be surprised if many people wish to continue this debate with you. You don't exactly make people feel welcomed to respond:

"Care to effectively address my assertion, rather than ducking it?"

"but again, you make a fair, if thin, point."

"And here again, we have the umpteenth example of a so-called Christian defining her religion, rather than allowing it to define her."

"Yeah, I'm out to getcha, PopcornTreeCt, guard your women and children--the heathen have broken loose again!"

*shrug* At least you've made me feel less welcomed to respond to you.

tasha99
05-10-05, 06:01 PM
And I ask again: can only Christians decide what is, and is not, Christian behavior?

They can; I was just being grumpy because even though it's just another person's classification, it feels weird to be considered non-Christian when I firmly believe in Christ.



But you're making your own interpretation of what the spirit says, aren't you? At least when people debate the intent of the Bible they can all look at the same text.

I don't think so since the Spirit is a part of every person, whereas the Bible is external.


So said David Koresh.

I'm not really sure comparing Quaker belief (which values the Bible but as secondary to the inner light) to the Branch Davidians is fair (though I will say I think they got a bum deal--perfect example of the government going all gung ho and people dying needlessly). Quakers have been around since the 1600's, and have yet to arm themselves. If you knew anything about them, you'd know how ridiculous the idea of armed Quakers is.



Care to effectively address my assertion, rather than ducking it?
I guess I just don't see how I define my religion any more than other people do; it's not like I'm the only Quaker in the world, and my beliefs are pretty much in line with tradition. So what if that tradition is outside the religious right--it's still a form of Christianity, which as you are learning is an umbrella that covers a wide variety of beliefs.

Filmmaker
05-10-05, 06:02 PM
Filmmaker,

At this point, I'd be surprised if many people wish to continue this debate with you. You don't exactly make people feel welcomed to respond:

"Care to effectively address my assertion, rather than ducking it?"

"but again, you make a fair, if thin, point."

"And here again, we have the umpteenth example of a so-called Christian defining her religion, rather than allowing it to define her."

"Yeah, I'm out to getcha, PopcornTreeCt, guard your women and children--the heathen have broken loose again!"

*shrug* At least you've made me feel less welcomed to respond to you.

I'm sure this won't help my case with you, but frankly, I'm not in this thread to make friends...the guantlet of debate was thrown at my feet and I'm stepping up to the challenge. If your feelings are hurt, I'm not as sorry about that as I am that your apparently fragile ego is of more concern to you than working toward truth.

And in regards to the quotes you listed, only the one to PopcornTreeCt registers as open, catty sarcasm. The rest are points of legitimate debate that the people they were made toward can either a) fight, b) accept or c) run from.

Filmmaker
05-10-05, 06:09 PM
I don't think so since the Spirit is a part of every person, whereas the Bible is external.

However, it is fixed--where does a religion stand if every member is entitled to their own completely subjective opinion of what the "Spirit" is advising them? Oh, let me guess--it's the voice of the "Spirit", not the people hearing it; therefore, it can't be subjective, right? Whoa... :rolleyes:

I'm not really sure comparing Quaker belief (which values the Bible but as secondary to the inner light) to the Branch Davidians is fair (though I will say I think they got a bum deal--perfect example of the government going all gung ho and people dying needlessly). Quakers have been around since the 1600's, and have yet to arm themselves. If you knew anything about them, you'd know how ridiculous the idea of armed Quakers is.

I'm very dissapointed in this answer, which fails to address my point whatsoever. See above on subjectivity.

So what if that tradition is outside the religious right--it's still a form of Christianity, which as you are learning is an umbrella that covers a wide variety of beliefs.

Again, how do you define yourself as Christian if the so-called Word of God is not of paramount importance to you. Easily (judging by your posts)--you simply allow yourself the extreme privilege of subjectively defining Christ's wishes for Man, rather than accepting them as divined in the Bible. I find nothing Christian in what you're espousing here. Better to call youself a Tasha99ian than a Christian, since your interpretation of this "Spirit"--whatever the hell that is--is your guiding principle.

DodgingCars
05-10-05, 06:40 PM
I'm sure this won't help my case with you, but frankly, I'm not in this thread to make friends...the guantlet of debate was thrown at my feet and I'm stepping up to the challenge. If your feelings are hurt, I'm not as sorry about that as I am that your apparently fragile ego is of more concern to you than working toward truth.

And in regards to the quotes you listed, only the one to PopcornTreeCt registers as open, catty sarcasm. The rest are points of legitimate debate that the people they were made toward can either a) fight, b) accept or c) run from.

The fact that you can't recognize your negative tone and attitude in those quotes or in this reply you made to me just proves my point.

Venusian
05-10-05, 06:47 PM
i read some of hte thread and skimmed some...

your point is that Christians shouldn't use curse words because society thinks they are bad.


so it is a sin to say "shit"? was it a sin to say it 2000 years ago? if not, isn't that relativism?


like others said, its not the word that matters it is the motive. other words can be bad too depending on how they are said.

Venusian
05-10-05, 06:50 PM
Ah, but recall, I'm not a Christian and I don't follow the so-called Word of God; using scripture to take issue with my argument is a failed effort.


how does that work? you use scripture as a basis for your argument but when others do, it is a failed effort? if you are going to use scripture and take it out of context or misinterpret, others should be able to use scripture to show you what it means

Venusian
05-10-05, 06:51 PM
oh and as a Christian, you might call me a hypocrite. I admit it. I sin. I'm a sinner. I believe I should do certain things but I don't. but i suspect you do too. we all do

kvrdave
05-10-05, 06:52 PM
HYPOCRITE!!! :grunt:

tasha99
05-10-05, 06:55 PM
Again, how do you define yourself as Christian if the so-called Word of God is not of paramount importance to you. Easily (judging by your posts)--you simply allow yourself the extreme privilege of subjectively defining Christ's wishes for Man, rather than accepting them as divined in the Bible. I find nothing Christian in what you're espousing here. Better to call youself a Tasha99ian than a Christian, since your interpretation of this "Spirit"--whatever the hell that is--is your guiding principle.

:lol:

I'm sorry, but you miss the point. If you don't believe that there is the spark of God in everyone, then of course it seems like you could just make this up as you went along. That spark is the word of God, though, so it's not like it would tell you to do something that is un-Christlike. I'm pretty sure other forms of Christianity believe in a holy spirit too, they may just place less importance on it.

Filmmaker
05-11-05, 09:14 AM
your point is that Christians shouldn't use curse words because society thinks they are bad.

No, it's that, if society thinks it's bad, then it's logical to reason that God does, too. Not a given, as kvrdave has effectively pointed out, but I would still argue a likelihood.

so it is a sin to say "shit"? was it a sin to say it 2000 years ago? if not, isn't that relativism?

As someone already pointed out, the word shit didn't exist 2,000 years ago. Perhaps you can clarify the point you're trying to make?

like others said, its not the word that matters it is the motive. other words can be bad too depending on how they are said.

I continue to wait for a single example of the word "shit" being used in a non-defiling manner. Even in the pragmatic "I have to take a shit", though describing a real event, the foul sentiment takes precedence over the informational aspect of the statement.

Filmmaker
05-11-05, 09:15 AM
how does that work? you use scripture as a basis for your argument but when others do, it is a failed effort? if you are going to use scripture and take it out of context or misinterpret, others should be able to use scripture to show you what it means

You miss a key point--I am using scripture to hold Christians accountable for their behaviors vis-a-vis their chosen belief system. Others are trying to return the approach, but I am not a Christian and do not abide by its ethos. Therein lies the rub.

Filmmaker
05-11-05, 09:16 AM
HYPOCRITE!!! :grunt:

Cheers! :D

Filmmaker
05-11-05, 09:31 AM
:lol:

I'm sorry, but you miss the point. If you don't believe that there is the spark of God in everyone, then of course it seems like you could just make this up as you went along. That spark is the word of God, though, so it's not like it would tell you to do something that is un-Christlike. I'm pretty sure other forms of Christianity believe in a holy spirit too, they may just place less importance on it.

I realize that (like usual) I'm obviously in the minority in this thread, but is anyone else willing to step up and admit this chick is freaking them the hell out? :confused:

tasha99, I'll give you kudos for the intricacies of your twisted (ahem) logic, but if you honestly can't recognize the GROSS subjectivity of saying "the Spirit speaks inside of me and those like me and whatever it tells us must be true", then I'm not sure I feel your sanity is stable enough to continue debating with you. I know that comes off as insulting, but I can only defend myself by saying it's my honest perception of people such as yourself, a la David Koresh.

Filmmaker
05-11-05, 09:32 AM
The fact that you can't recognize your negative tone and attitude in those quotes or in this reply you made to me just proves my point.

Again, I would argue that the focus here should not be on positive or negative tones, but a search for the truth and a willingness to confront it, whether it work for your argument or against it. If you disagree, then why are you still here?

Rockmjd23
05-11-05, 09:41 AM
-notrolls-

Tommy Ceez
05-11-05, 09:54 AM
No, it's that, if society thinks it's bad, then it's logical to reason that God does, too. Not a given, as kvrdave has effectively pointed out, but I would still argue a likelihood.

I've read this stunning leap in logic many times in this thread, yet I still cannot grasp it. According to the teachings of Jesus, the US not responding to, and forgiving the perpetrators of 9/11 would be a good thing, yet society would find it unacceptable.

As far as the point of all Christians must follow the bible, I could start the Church of Christ tomorrow, reject all modern translations of the Bible outright, and still be Christian.

Filmmaker
05-11-05, 09:59 AM
You're comparing apples and oranges; society would not have thought forgiving the perpetrators was bad, just unfeasible, given our lust (and I include myself in this group) for justice. Our collective passions exceed our piousness. If the God concept fails tragically in any area, providing humans a sense of justice and fair play in the world would have to be near the top of the list.

Society would think "shit" was bad because, well, it's a FUCKING CURSE WORD! It's meant to be bad. That's why it's not on regular TV; that's why priests and preachers don't say it in sermons; that's why a warning label goes on the CD when the word gets laid down on a track. Is this really rocket science?

As far as the point of all Christians must follow the bible, I could start the Church of Christ tomorrow, reject all modern translations of the Bible outright, and still be Christian.

Such a bold statement without a shred of support means precisely dick.

Rockmjd23
05-11-05, 10:17 AM
Such a bold statement without a shred of support means precisely dick.

The term Christian can be used to describe anyone who chooses to follow teachings of Jesus Christ and practices his one true commandment which is "Love your neighbor." Going beyond that and scrutinizing over every chapter in the OT and NT and creating a Church out of it is something that man has done since his death. That's why we have 100+ denominations of Christianity because of differences in interpretation. That's why there's that church in the south where the parishioners hold venomous snakes in their hands. They saw one line somewhere in the Bible (not sure where, but I know it's there) that told them to show their belief that Jesus will protect them from harm from the snakes. I consider myself a Christian on the basis of Jesus' teachings, and message to love one another and forgive. And the definition of Christianity backs me up on that:

3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; (American Heritage dictionary)

I attend Catholic mass, but I do so because I believe the ritual keeps me close to him. Do I sin? Yes. Jesus died to save us from our sins. I once asked my priest what the definition of a "Good Catholic" is. He replied "A good Catholic, or any Christian, is a sinner who keeps trying."

Jon22B
05-11-05, 10:55 AM
I'll see you in hell......from heaven.

kvrdave
05-11-05, 11:27 AM
No, it's that, if society thinks it's bad, then it's logical to reason that God does, too. Not a given, as kvrdave has effectively pointed out, but I would still argue a likelihood.


This is only logical to an atheist who believes that man created God and not the other way around.

kvrdave
05-11-05, 11:29 AM
You miss a key point--I am using scripture to hold Christians accountable for their behaviors vis-a-vis their chosen belief system. Others are trying to return the approach, but I am not a Christian and do not abide by its ethos. Therein lies the rub.

By the same token, do you profess to follow whatever credo you have perfectly, and without flaw? Or do you claim to have no ethics?

Filmmaker
05-11-05, 11:30 AM
The term Christian can be used to describe anyone who chooses to follow teachings of Jesus Christ and practices his one true commandment which is "Love your neighbor." Going beyond that and scrutinizing over every chapter in the OT and NT and creating a Church out of it is something that man has done since his death. That's why we have 100+ denominations of Christianity because of differences in interpretation. That's why there's that church in the south where the parishioners hold venomous snakes in their hands. They saw one line somewhere in the Bible (not sure where, but I know it's there) that told them to show their belief that Jesus will protect them from harm from the snakes. I consider myself a Christian on the basis of Jesus' teachings, and message to love one another and forgive. And the definition of Christianity backs me up on that:

3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; (American Heritage dictionary)

I attend Catholic mass, but I do so because I believe the ritual keeps me close to him. Do I sin? Yes. Jesus died to save us from our sins. I once asked my priest what the definition of a "Good Catholic" is. He replied "A good Catholic, or any Christian, is a sinner who keeps trying."

That's all pretty and heart-warming and all, but it's also called moral relativism. "I'll exalt these teachings in the Bible, but ignore those." I especially cringe at the line "The term Christian can be used to describe anyone who chooses to follow teachings of Jesus Christ and practices his one true commandment which is "Love your neighbor." So when did God take a vacation and decide you were the source to dictate what Jesus's "one true commandment" was? The sheer volume of so-called Christians in this thread making the case that humanity makes the decision on what is germane from God's and Christ's teachings and what is not makes my head spin. Yes, I agree, the line about the snakes is quite troubling. Maybe one could see it as one example of multiple examples that highlight the Christian religion for what it is--a crock of bull worked up by madmen sick from desert heat, but if I was a Christian, I'd think I owed to Jesus to take stock in it, since it is the alleged Word of God. That's the problem with this religion--the Bible is full of such moral inconsistency, archane and faulty advisements, sexism, et al, that Christians have to put themselves in an almost unconscious screening mode to void all the obvious indications that the religion serves no meaningful function if taken holistically (which it demands it be taken) and retain the misguided core that assures them that they will live on past this mortal coil. Christianity--one big death fear. But I threaten to digress...

Filmmaker
05-11-05, 11:31 AM
This is only logical to an atheist who believes that man created God and not the other way around.

1) I prefer agnostic, or secular humanist, for reasons stated earlier.

2) Can you give further clarification?

Filmmaker
05-11-05, 11:38 AM
By the same token, do you profess to follow whatever credo you have perfectly, and without flaw? Or do you claim to have no ethics?

I reiterate an earlier posting of mine from Page 2 of this thread:

"Ah, but recall, I'm not a Christian and I don't follow the so-called Word of God; using scripture to take issue with my argument is a failed effort. If I allow it in good faith (no pun intended) for this single moment, I would say, I may carry my own faults as any human would, but in terms of my personal belief system, I feel justified and wholly accurate when I say I am no hypocrite (the fact that it isn't codified like Christianity makes it a damn sight easier, I'll be the first to admit)--I argue that the same can't be said for so-called Christians like Chris Tucker and Rene Russo."

Oh, and in regards to whether I have a sense of ethics, if you'll allow me the courtesy of researching "secular humanism" for even 15-30 minutes on the internet, you should have that question answered clearly and succinctly.

Filmmaker
05-11-05, 11:46 AM
I'll see you in hell......from heaven.

Assuming this was targeted at me, it's just as well--if I'm wrong about Christianity, all the interesting people will be in hell anyway.

kvrdave
05-11-05, 11:46 AM
2) Can you give further clarification?

Sure, it is logical to assume that what our society believes as bad, God also believes is bad, only if society and God have the same basic moral principles and tendencies. If you are going by the God of the Bible (and we are since Chris Tucker is), you see that God has no "sin nature" but man does ever since they rejected God's instruction and decided to take free will around the block for a test drive.

Then looking at man throughout the Bible's history (and other history), you find that there are often things that God allows but does not endorse (part of the free will thing). It was never in God's plan to have a King. People demanded a King, even though God warned that kings just accumulate wealth, wifes, and .....damn, need another "w" word to make that perfect. Anyway, Society wanted a king, God did not.

There is also a tendancy to take whatever God "gives, says, etc." and take it far beyond what God did or said. Legalism, effectively. This is how you have 10 commandments and have Israel finding 613 commandments.

And God has always allowed society to make it's own rules (free will), even though what they come up with may not be what he intended. Slavery is the obvious one. And it is a good one to make this point. God does not change, but society does. From your logic, because Society once was okay with Slavery, so was God. That is a huge leap of logic. It also is a logical fallacy if we take the Bible as correct that God does not change, because Society no longer views Slavery as okay.

Now to a non-religious person, the assumption is generally that if there is a Creator, he is not involved with us in any way. Pantheism, Deist, etc. would all fit this. So the general thinking is that man created a god to explain why thunder and lightning happen, why there are eclipses, etc. If one believes that society is the creator of a god, then it is perfectly logical to assume that whatever society "blesses" so does their god. But that is inconsistant with the Biblical God because society's "blessings" contradict themselves over history, while the Biblical God is the same then, now, for eternity.

That make sense?

tbird2340
05-11-05, 11:52 AM
Yoy... That was good Dave! :thumbsup:

kvrdave
05-11-05, 11:54 AM
but in terms of my personal belief system, I feel justified and wholly accurate when I say I am no hypocrite (the fact that it isn't codified like Christianity makes it a damn sight easier, I'll be the first to admit)

Damn, that's impressive. If you are telling me that you have never done anything that you believed was wrong, nor have you ever broken whatever moral code you do believe (and we all believe in one to some degree), nor that you have ever bent the rules for something that benefitted you, etc. (and being in the filming industry, that seems difficult to believe), then you are the first that I have ever heard of.

Venusian
05-11-05, 11:55 AM
You miss a key point--I am using scripture to hold Christians accountable for their behaviors vis-a-vis their chosen belief system. Others are trying to return the approach, but I am not a Christian and do not abide by its ethos. Therein lies the rub.


others aren't trying to hold you accountable by scripture, they are using it to show you that you are interpreting it wrong

Venusian
05-11-05, 11:57 AM
The sheer volume of so-called Christians in this thread making the case that humanity makes the decision on what is germane from God's and Christ's teachings and what is not makes my head spin.
there are many of us who aren't saying that..you apparently aren't listening though.

Venusian
05-11-05, 12:04 PM
No, it's that, if society thinks it's bad, then it's logical to reason that God does, too. Not a given, as kvrdave has effectively pointed out, but I would still argue a likelihood.


As someone already pointed out, the word shit didn't exist 2,000 years ago. Perhaps you can clarify the point you're trying to make?


I continue to wait for a single example of the word "shit" being used in a non-defiling manner. Even in the pragmatic "I have to take a shit", though describing a real event, the foul sentiment takes precedence over the informational aspect of the statement.


same thing dave said. society once thought slavery is okay, does that mean God did? Society once thought "shit" was okay, does that mean God did. THAT is moral reletivism. You are trying to get society to dictate what is right and wrong. Society changes, God doesn't.

If shit didn't exist 2000 years ago, it wouldnt be wrong to say it. if so, why is it wrong to say it now?

saying "I have to take a shit" isn't bad. Is saying "I have to take a crap" or "I have to take a poo" or "I have to defecate" any worse? I suspect it would depend on the audience. I could say "I have to take a shit" to a lot of my friends and they wouldnt' think it was bad. I could say it to my mom and she'd freak out. if you don't believe in moral relativism (which it sounds like you dont), then saying that phrase in and of itself can't be bad and good, it must be one or the other

DodgingCars
05-11-05, 12:07 PM
there are many of us who aren't saying that..you apparently aren't listening though.

Actually, I don't believe anyone has actually said that. It's just what he's deduced.

Filmmaker
05-11-05, 12:12 PM
Sure, it is logical to assume that what our society believes as bad, God also believes is bad, only if society and God have the same basic moral principles and tendencies...et al

Damn, I gotta give it up to you, man! Well argued! I have no quarrel with your reasoning. The slavery argument was particulary compelling since some of the other examples (from crowning kings to (ahem) ordering hamburgers) you and others have provided have not addressed moral concerns like the use of foul language, but I would never dare be foolish enough to imply slavery is not a moral issue, so a well-played hand, my friend, well played.

wmansir
05-11-05, 12:13 PM
Regarding the original question of this thread (since it seems long derailed and I'm not reading all 6 pages), this is an issue I've had to deal with myself. I think it's fine to pretend to do sinful acts as long as the project doesn't promote anti-Christian values overall. That's why I always make sure the sex is simulated in any porn role I take, and that any characters who make love out of wedlock are shown burning in hell as the credits role.

Yours Truly,

Joe Young

Filmmaker
05-11-05, 12:13 PM
others aren't trying to hold you accountable by scripture, they are using it to show you that you are interpreting it wrong

They are failing.

Filmmaker
05-11-05, 12:13 PM
there are many of us who aren't saying that..you apparently aren't listening though.

They are failing.

Filmmaker
05-11-05, 12:17 PM
Damn, that's impressive. If you are telling me that you have never done anything that you believed was wrong, nor have you ever broken whatever moral code you do believe (and we all believe in one to some degree), nor that you have ever bent the rules for something that benefitted you, etc. (and being in the filming industry, that seems difficult to believe), then you are the first that I have ever heard of.

Again, a fair point; I'm human, I'm prone to err, I have the same failings as anyone else. Any hypocrisy I may carry, however, does not rise to the level of Chris Tucker making money and celebrity off the kind of films he's in, the kind of characters he chooses to play, and then appearing on the 700 Club or somesuch expounding to the nation his deep convictions in the message of Christ.

gimmepilotwings
05-11-05, 12:20 PM
No, because you're using Christian dogma against me, who doesn't buy into it. I'm not a sinner in my own eyes if I don't believe in sin.


I do not understand how you can debate and question Chris's faith, question his actions and the roles that he takes, and then step back and say i dont believe in sin. Self admitted, you do not believe in atleast the slightest concept of sin.

That is like debating the route Santa takes each year to deliver presents, when you dont believe in Santa.

Filmmaker
05-11-05, 12:39 PM
No it's like holding Christians accountable for aligning with their chosen faith, whether I believe in that faith or not.

gimmepilotwings
05-11-05, 12:44 PM
I think the biggest part of the Christian faith, that you do not understand (atleast IMO) is that you are NOT expected to be perfect and without sin. God knows this, accepts this, and forgives us for this.

Could he be a better Christian? Of course, everyone that is a Christian could. But that really doesn't prove your point at all.

kvrdave
05-11-05, 12:52 PM
I think the biggest part of the Christian faith, that you do not understand (atleast IMO) is that you are NOT expected to be perfect and without sin. God knows this, accepts this, and forgives us for this.

Could he be a better Christian? Of course, everyone that is a Christian could. But that really doesn't prove your point at all.

This is the point that most most non-Christians don't get. They believe for some reason once you become a Christian you should be perfect because that is what you should strive for, and anything short of that is failure. The nuance lost is that The Law, etc. is to show that you can't be and need a Savior.

But does that stop the idea that you should go about your Christian life as perfect? Nope. It makes some people feel good to see Christians fail. It makes some people feel good to see anyone fail. But especially someone who is part of something that society has labeled as a "moral" position.

None of that really has to do with Christianity, but that is the "Hollywood" view, and so it persists. Oh well. :)


Just to be clear, none of the "some people" stuff was meant to imply filmmaker, or anyone else in this thread, in any way. Just the "some people" from real life observations.

sfsdfd
05-11-05, 01:04 PM
People demanded a King, even though God warned that kings just accumulate wealth, wifes, and .....damn, need another "w" word to make that perfect.
Wombats?
But that is inconsistant with the Biblical God because society's "blessings" contradict themselves over history, while the Biblical God is the same then, now, for eternity.
Eh, I dunno.. the Biblical God of the Old Testament seems extremely different from the Biblical God of the New Testament. One might chalk it up to the fact that each deals with a different embodiment of God, which explains "different," but it doesn't explain "contradictory." The OT God was about obedience and punishment. The NT God is about unmitigated forgiveness and second chances. The difference seems far too sharp to be chalked up to different authors and eras.

- David Stein

sfsdfd
05-11-05, 01:07 PM
They believe for some reason once you become a Christian you should be perfect because that is what you should strive for, and anything short of that is failure.
That makes perfect sense. Adopting a different belief system does not - cannot - immediately change every facet of your personality. It's like the old Buddhist (I think) saying: "Before enlightenment: chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment: chop wood and carry water."

- David Stein

kvrdave
05-11-05, 01:17 PM
Eh, I dunno.. the Biblical God of the Old Testament seems extremely different from the Biblical God of the New Testament. One might chalk it up to the fact that each deals with a different embodiment of God, which explains "different," but it doesn't explain "contradictory." The OT God was about obedience and punishment. The NT God is about unmitigated forgiveness and second chances. The difference seems far too sharp to be chalked up to different authors and eras.

- David Stein

To be sure there seems like a pretty heavy hand in OT compred with the NT. However, I don't know that much really changed. I say that because in the OT there was still the knowledge of a coming Messiah (though thought political), and you still have some other things that (to me) are amazing. The only time you see something counted as "righteousness" by God to someone in the OT is based on faith, such as when Abraham was going to sacrifice his son.

People often tend to look at that and say "What a sicko God must have been", but that also tends to look at it as something seen only for what it was, and not looking at it as something we would all know about (being written down for all to "learn from"). Okay, I wondered, but the point was that even in the OT it was faith. Obedience to the law only showed that it couldn't be done, which is what the sacrifices in the temple were for.

And wombats, of course. :)

Rockmjd23
05-11-05, 01:27 PM
Maybe one could see it as one example of multiple examples that highlight the Christian religion for what it is--a crock of bull worked up by madmen sick from desert heat, ...... Christianity--one big death fear. But I threaten to digress...

If you're going to make clearly offensive statements like these, then any intelligent "debating" you claim to be doing ends up sounding like nothing more than hate speech. You may not understand it, but religious people take their beliefs very seriously and statements like that are taken about as well as the N word is by african americans.

Rockmjd23
05-11-05, 01:32 PM
"I'll exalt these teachings in the Bible, but ignore those." I especially cringe at the line "The term Christian can be used to describe anyone who chooses to follow teachings of Jesus Christ and practices his one true commandment which is "Love your neighbor." So when did God take a vacation and decide you were the source to dictate what Jesus's "one true commandment" was?

I'm not the source. Jesus is.

John 13: 34-35
34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

Basically defining Christianity. If you follow his new commandment, then all men will know you as his disciples. Anything else?

Venusian
05-11-05, 02:14 PM
Wombats?

Eh, I dunno.. the Biblical God of the Old Testament seems extremely different from the Biblical God of the New Testament. One might chalk it up to the fact that each deals with a different embodiment of God, which explains "different," but it doesn't explain "contradictory." The OT God was about obedience and punishment. The NT God is about unmitigated forgiveness and second chances. The difference seems far too sharp to be chalked up to different authors and eras.

- David Steinnot if you look at the whole thing. Look at how God treated Israel, it was all about second chances (and third and fourth, etc)

Venusian
05-11-05, 02:15 PM
They are failing.
of course they are, you aren't reading their posts

Aldarion
05-11-05, 02:21 PM
No it's like holding Christians accountable for aligning with their chosen faith, whether I believe in that faith or not.

I'm curious as to why you seem to care so much about this, other than playing "Devil's advocate".

Rockmjd23
05-11-05, 03:32 PM
I'm curious as to why you seem to care so much about this, other than playing "Devil's advocate".

:lol: That phrase fits all too well in this discussion too.

Jon22B
05-11-05, 03:45 PM
Assuming this was targeted at me, it's just as well--if I'm wrong about Christianity, all the interesting people will be in hell anyway.

No I was quoting a line from The Simpsons.

But your arrogant attitude and flawed argument on this topic proves you're just a troll.
And you're creepier and freak me out more than tasha99.

tasha99
05-11-05, 03:55 PM
I realize that (like usual) I'm obviously in the minority in this thread, but is anyone else willing to step up and admit this chick is freaking them the hell out? :confused:

tasha99, I'll give you kudos for the intricacies of your twisted (ahem) logic, but if you honestly can't recognize the GROSS subjectivity of saying "the Spirit speaks inside of me and those like me and whatever it tells us must be true", then I'm not sure I feel your sanity is stable enough to continue debating with you. I know that comes off as insulting, but I can only defend myself by saying it's my honest perception of people such as yourself, a la David Koresh.

Well, okay then, whatever. I guess I got off on a tangent here about the Society of Friends because I couldn't believe you were making blanket comments about Christianity that didn't fit with what many Quakers believe. There are about 300,000 Quakers in the world and yes, your dismissal is pretty insulting not just to me, but to many of them. Trusting the spirit isn't really any more dangerous than trusting the bible because if someone wanted to, they could bend their interpretation for worldly purposes. As has been pointed out in this thread, God-fearing Christians did that with slavery.

And yes, people can mislead themselves into thinking the spirit is guiding them when it isn't, just as people can misinterpret the bible. However that's their mistake, not the spirit's. From a Quaker website http://www.langdale.karoo.net/belief.html

"Friends are encouraged to test individual leadings in a gathered meeting for worship and sometimes a special 'Meeting for Clearness' may be called for this purpose. This process recognises that the individual may be mistaken in discerning a leading but we also know from experience that the individual discernment can be truer than the corporate one. It took John Woolman many years of patient ministry to convince Quakers in Britain that his discernment that slavery was against the will of God was a true one."

This website describes the Religious Society of Friends better than I can:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/quaker.htm

And that's it for me in this discussion (until tonight at least). I don't think my beliefs are crazy, but trying to convince Filmmaker that there is more than one flavor of Christianity probably is.

As for the original Chris Tucker question, I think that's Tucker's business.

Dead
05-11-05, 05:33 PM
No I was quoting a line from The Simpsons.

But your arrogant attitude and flawed argument on this topic proves you're just a troll.
And you're creepier and freak me out more than tasha99.


Jon22B, as a quote, some context might have been helpful. As it was presented, it came across as an insult. Similarly, the last part of this sounds fairly rude. Please try to keep the discussion on the topic and avoid commenting about other members.

Rockmjd23
05-11-05, 05:45 PM
No it's like holding Christians accountable for aligning with their chosen faith, whether I believe in that faith or not.

Holding us accountable for choosing a religion? You're implying that we need to answer to you for something. Also, you haven't responded to my post where I debunked your entire argument.

kvrdave
05-11-05, 05:48 PM
:lol: Please let this thread die peacefully.

jaeufraser
05-11-05, 11:20 PM
Again, a fair point; I'm human, I'm prone to err, I have the same failings as anyone else. Any hypocrisy I may carry, however, does not rise to the level of Chris Tucker making money and celebrity off the kind of films he's in, the kind of characters he chooses to play, and then appearing on the 700 Club or somesuch expounding to the nation his deep convictions in the message of Christ.

Having seen the Rush Hour films, I know full well this conversation deals solely with curse words. Those films really do not portray, at least to my knowledge, anything else that might be considered sin. The violence and sexuality in that movie isn't what I believe would fall under the realm of sin, as they are done in a manner which wouldn't even be considered sin within relation to the character. Of course, is portrayal of sin a bad thing? Is the violence depicted, or the evils as portrayed in a film such as The Passion of the Christ, a sin of those who acted and made the film? I'd have to believe not, but you Christians can tell me. Given the positive and heroic nature of the actors in Rush Hour, that really leaves us with curse words in his so called hypocrisy. As I've stated, his turn to Christianity dates past some of his earlier roles such as Friday or Jackie Brown. In fact, he has clearly stated he would not do roles of that sort again based upon his relgious inclinations.

Now the question of curse words has been debated here, and quite frankly I agree that, save for taking the Lord's name in vain, they are not necessarily sin. You have quoted the Bible, but one could interpret those quotes in many different ways (not to mention depending upon which translation you are drawing from). Not being a Christian myself, I do not really care to come upon my own interpretation of those words and hold others who do beleive in them to that standard. You're more then welcome to, but I do see religion as a personal thing and quite frankly that's where it belongs the most. To most Christians I know, their Christianity is completely about their personal relationship to God. And of course the Bible IS a foundation for that faith and their morals, but given the wording of that book I hardly think a single interpretation of its meaning could ever be decided upon. Uttering curse words? Again ,the back and forth arguments in this very thread should indicate that not everyone holds your viewpoint on what those verses mean, and what God's views on such things mean either.

Though, I should say I do not hold people to an absolute Christian standard because I do see religion as a personal thing, and I do respect that. When it crosses the line to interfere with my life, I do not respect that but whether worhsipping Jesus (in all its various forms and interpretations), or following the Book of Mormon or following the faith of G Kleinman, I really hold no judgement as there certainly is room for various beliefs. What you simply seem to be doing is holding people accountable to their faith, but as YOU see it. If you can't tell that the Bible has much room for interpretation given the myriads of translations and room for various interpretations of what these things mean, then you're always going to see those of religion as hypocrites. But it comes down to these people believing that they are in the right. That they are following their religion as best as possible.

Now could Chris Tucker actually be a hypocrite? You'll have to find out where his beliefs stand, and what Christianity means to him. Because when I see religon, I see faith, I see a personal belief and conviction. I don't see a clearly stated rulebook defining what's ok and what's not. Especially when we're talking about words like "shit." Cause you'll never get me to say that "shit" is a bad word. In fact, I like saying shit. Shit shit shit. I certainly don't think it to be a vile word or a negative in our society, so why would I hold someone to task for saying it because some people who share their beliefs find it to be a bad word? You must realize when it comes to so called curse words, there is a constant flux of what is bad and what is not. Is ass a bad word? Is fuck a bad word? Is boobie a bad word? When it comes to the Bible, there's going to have to be some interpretation because there's no list of "do not say" words and to hold the standard according to what some (keep in mind it's SOME as these words are not considered bad by everyone in society) think is wrong is just not based in scripture.

Filmmaker
05-12-05, 09:17 AM
I think the biggest part of the Christian faith, that you do not understand (atleast IMO) is that you are NOT expected to be perfect and without sin. God knows this, accepts this, and forgives us for this.

Could he be a better Christian? Of course, everyone that is a Christian could. But that really doesn't prove your point at all.

This is the point that most most non-Christians don't get. They believe for some reason once you become a Christian you should be perfect because that is what you should strive for, and anything short of that is failure. The nuance lost is that The Law, etc. is to show that you can't be and need a Savior.

I do understand this, but the fact that Chris Tucker has such a tenous grasp of piousness that he willingly takes these roles speaks to me of a GROSS willingness to "sin", not of just an occasional slip-up.

Filmmaker
05-12-05, 09:43 AM
If you're going to make clearly offensive statements like these, then any intelligent "debating" you claim to be doing ends up sounding like nothing more than hate speech. You may not understand it, but religious people take their beliefs very seriously and statements like that are taken about as well as the N word is by african americans.

If I've raised your ire with my accusations, please feel free to debate them. Again, I'm not aiming to heal bruised egos, I'm trying to dig toward the truth.

Filmmaker
05-12-05, 09:46 AM
I'm not the source. Jesus is.

John 13: 34-35
34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

Basically defining Christianity. If you follow his new commandment, then all men will know you as his disciples. Anything else?

Huh, so as a secular humanist, who (by the very namesake) has great and abiding love for my human brethren, I guess I'm a Christian disciple by default? Does this mean I don't have to buy that Jesus died on the cross to gain access to the pearly gates now? Shifty, malleable religion ya got there, pal...

Filmmaker
05-12-05, 09:49 AM
of course they are, you aren't reading their posts

You posts are becoming petulant--I have responded to every post with an insight into where I find faulty logic; you responded with "no, you're just not listening to them". Please feel free to offer meaningful discourse and go back and show me where my accusations are faulty. Otherwise, your accusation that I'm not listening will appear as it is--wholly without merit or support.

kvrdave
05-12-05, 03:05 PM
I do understand this, but the fact that Chris Tucker has such a tenous grasp of piousness that he willingly takes these roles speaks to me of a GROSS willingness to "sin", not of just an occasional slip-up.

I don't think that is an accurate statement, but let's assume it is. Okay, the guy isn't following the example of Jesus as well as some non-Christians think he should. My guess is that no Christian follows the example of Jesus as well as some non-Christians think they should, so I can't get too worked up about it.

Salvation is easy, it's the perfection and sanctification that takes time.

Aldarion
05-12-05, 03:37 PM
I do understand this, but the fact that Chris Tucker has such a tenous grasp of piousness that he willingly takes these roles speaks to me of a GROSS willingness to "sin", not of just an occasional slip-up.


Can you give examples of Christians that live and act like you feel a Christian should?

Filmmaker
05-12-05, 04:07 PM
I'm curious as to why you seem to care so much about this, other than playing "Devil's advocate".

I reiterate my quote from Page 2 of this thread:

"As I stated from the outset, I'm playing devil's advocate. Since I have to live in an America choking under the stench of alleged piousness, then I feel compelled to call anyone who terms themselves Christian out for it when I see they are not standing by the tenets of their chosen faith. If I'm going to have to live/suffer in a Christian-biased nation, then I would at least take some measure of odd comfort knowing that those of the Christian faith stand against me out of a real and deep seated conviction in the absolute moral dictates of their god, not because they're just faking it to curry societal favor or to slip into heaven on a technicality."

Filmmaker
05-12-05, 04:08 PM
No I was quoting a line from The Simpsons.

But your arrogant attitude and flawed argument on this topic proves you're just a troll.
And you're creepier and freak me out more than tasha99.

Then I suppose this would be a bad time to tell you I'm dating your sister, eh?

:D

Oh, and I'm still waiting for compelling evidence of my alleged argument flaws.

tbird2340
05-12-05, 04:10 PM
I just think your bored.. I mean you must really have nothing better to do..

Go back to "suffering" in this nation.. You have it SOOOOO bad..

Filmmaker
05-12-05, 04:13 PM
There are about 300,000 Quakers in the world and yes, your dismissal is pretty insulting not just to me, but to many of them.

They're welcome to defend themselves.

Trusting the spirit isn't really any more dangerous than trusting the bible because if someone wanted to, they could bend their interpretation for worldly purposes.

As for the original Chris Tucker question, I think that's Tucker's business.

Sure, that's responsible...let people do as they will and hope God sorts them out later.

Filmmaker
05-12-05, 04:14 PM
There are about 300,000 Quakers in the world and yes, your dismissal is pretty insulting not just to me, but to many of them.

They're welcome to defend themselves.

Trusting the spirit isn't really any more dangerous than trusting the bible because if someone wanted to, they could bend their interpretation for worldly purposes.

But at least the Bible has the advantage of being codified; your version basically amounts to anything goes, since you're allegedly following a voice from within rather than a commandment laid down from outside yourself.

As for the original Chris Tucker question, I think that's Tucker's business.

Sure, that's responsible...let people do as they will and hope God sorts them out later.

Filmmaker
05-12-05, 04:16 PM
Jon22B, as a quote, some context might have been helpful. As it was presented, it came across as an insult. Similarly, the last part of this sounds fairly rude. Please try to keep the discussion on the topic and avoid commenting about other members.

Thanks for backing me up, Dead (which probably hurt a little, considering some of my comments toward you in other posts), but in all fairness, I drew first blood by calling tasha99 creepy...a statement I can't help but stand by...

Filmmaker
05-12-05, 04:18 PM
Holding us accountable for choosing a religion? You're implying that we need to answer to you for something.

I suffer as a non-believer in a land biased towards believers; you're damned tooting I'm gonna call Christians out any way I can as readily as a slave would a slavemaster.

Also, you haven't responded to my post where I debunked your entire argument.

I regret that, if so. Please direct me to the posting #.

Ranger
05-12-05, 04:27 PM
I wonder what the Muslim community's impression of Tupac Shakur is?

:)

But hey, Tucker is cool. :)

jaeufraser
05-12-05, 04:30 PM
Filmmaker, do you believe the portrayal of sinful acts is a sin in of itself? I mean the portrayal of acts of death or sexual interest or such. You do have to admit there is a definite gray area as to whether people consider words such as "shit" sin, so I'm just wondering what is so egregious about anything Chris Tucker does in these Rush Hour movies. So aside from cursing, which is not universally agreed upon as sin (at least admit that much) is there anything in these films which is really against the Christian belief? Are Christians sinning because they are acting a character who is sinning? Can Christians not portray villians or shady characters even in a positive story? Cause besides some cursing, there really isn't much negative in these films we are talking about. And again, many do not see cursing as some undeniable sin. Granted, Tucker was playing a good guy in those films, but I'm curious what you think in the more broad spectrum there.

Filmmaker
05-12-05, 04:44 PM
Having seen the Rush Hour films, I know full well this conversation deals solely with curse words.

Sexuality is also being addressed, but my detractors are more fascinated by the language issue, apparently.

Those films really do not portray, at least to my knowledge, anything else that might be considered sin. The violence and sexuality in that movie isn't what I believe would fall under the realm of sin

Quote #3,876 wherein a person is stating they determine what is sin, not God.

as they are done in a manner which wouldn't even be considered sin within relation to the character.

I don't follow--are you saying Chris Tucker's character isn't sinning because he doesn't see it as a sin?

Of course, is portrayal of sin a bad thing? Is the violence depicted, or the evils as portrayed in a film such as The Passion of the Christ, a sin of those who acted and made the film?

From a Christian perspective, I would argue not if the artistic piece is in the service of Jesus's/God's teachings. Whether the RUSH HOUR films qualify is certainly subjective, but I would be inclined to think not.

In fact, he has clearly stated he would not do roles of that sort again based upon his relgious inclinations.

As I've mentioned multiple times, I will be interested to see how he lives up to this claim. I feel RUSH HOUR 3 will have to take a much tamer tone to qualify (and who'd wanna see that? Not I.).

Now the question of curse words has been debated here, and quite frankly I agree that, save for taking the Lord's name in vain, they are not necessarily sin.

Agreed, somer compelling dissention has been made.

You have quoted the Bible, but one could interpret those quotes in many different ways (not to mention depending upon which translation you are drawing from). Not being a Christian myself, I do not really care to come upon my own interpretation of those words and hold others who do beleive in them to that standard.

Yes, but the more my arguments expose the Bible's, shall we say, malleability in terms of interpretation, the more it exposes holes in the validity of Christianity itself. Are we really to believe that a supreme being would be so dense as to base the reality of him and his philosophy on a written work so fraught with inconsistencies, continuity flaws and the like that arguments about it started and dissenting factions drew arms against one another before the ink was even dry?

You're more then welcome to, but I do see religion as a personal thing and quite frankly that's where it belongs the most. To most Christians I know, their Christianity is completely about their personal relationship to God.

Which returns us to who determines God's doctrine: God, or his followers?

Though, I should say I do not hold people to an absolute Christian standard because I do see religion as a personal thing, and I do respect that.[/QUOTE]

I do not, because it's an anything goes approach to religion, one based on nothing more than gross subjectivity, and as such, fails to represent any meaning in itself.

What you simply seem to be doing is holding people accountable to their faith, but as YOU see it.

I am holding them accountable to God's doctrine as laid out in the Bible; if I can't reasonably do that due to the Bible's interpretabilty problems, then you've helped support me in exposing one of the fatal flaws of Christianity and all other religions. Thanks for that.

But it comes down to these people believing that they are in the right. That they are following their religion as best as possible.

Do you really take in degree of safety, peace or satisfaction in that?

Now could Chris Tucker actually be a hypocrite? You'll have to find out where his beliefs stand, and what Christianity means to him.

Not if I continue the argument that God determines the parameters of the belief, not his followers.

Shit shit shit.

He he...he said "shit"...

Filmmaker
05-12-05, 04:47 PM
My guess is that no Christian follows the example of Jesus as well as some non-Christians think they should, so I can't get too worked up about it.

I didn't either--I just made a passing comment that blatant Christian hypocrisy makes me laugh...now, eight pages of vitriol later...he he...

Rockmjd23
05-12-05, 04:52 PM
Huh, so as a secular humanist, who (by the very namesake) has great and abiding love for my human brethren, I guess I'm a Christian disciple by default? Does this mean I don't have to buy that Jesus died on the cross to gain access to the pearly gates now? Shifty, malleable religion ya got there, pal...

Very precise religion actually. I assumed it was implied that as a Christian, one would believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, didn't think I needed to also state that but you're reaching so there it is. Jesus didn't ask for much, the Catholic Church does, but of course being Christian doesn't mean being Catholic. I happen to be both, but we're only talking about Christianity, and my definition is exactly what it is. Oh, and I don't know if you'll get to the pearly gates, that is between you and Him.

If I've raised your ire with my accusations, please feel free to debate them. Again, I'm not aiming to heal bruised egos, I'm trying to dig toward the truth

You haven't raised my ire or bruised my ego with your "accusations" Like this is the first time someone has attacked Christianity :lol:(though I can't say I've ever heard it involving the definition of 'shit' or Chris Tucker :lol:)
All I was saying that any valid arguments you might be making are diminished by the fact that you are openly ridiculing people , calling them not true christians, and resorting to derogatory comments about the religion. That is not good debate. Speaking of which, I have answered the only question posted to me, which was regarding the source of Jesus' one commandment. I gave that source to you, Jesus himself.

Filmmaker
05-12-05, 04:54 PM
Can you give examples of Christians that live and act like you feel a Christian should?

That act like I think they should? No, because they'd have to sacrifice their conviction in a supreme being. Assuming they're not going to do that, then I at least hold them accountable for following God's tenets as laid out in the Bible. The more boldly they refuse to do so, the more I will hold them in open contempt for talking a talk when they won't (can't?) walk the walk.

Rockmjd23
05-12-05, 04:55 PM
I suffer as a non-believer in a land biased towards believers; you're damned tooting I'm gonna call Christians out any way I can as readily as a slave would a slavemaster.


art?

Filmmaker
05-12-05, 04:55 PM
I just think your bored.. I mean you must really have nothing better to do..

Go back to "suffering" in this nation.. You have it SOOOOO bad..

So once said the 1950s white man to the Negro.

Filmmaker
05-12-05, 04:58 PM
Filmmaker, do you believe the portrayal of sinful acts is a sin in of itself? I mean the portrayal of acts of death or sexual interest or such. You do have to admit there is a definite gray area as to whether people consider words such as "shit" sin, so I'm just wondering what is so egregious about anything Chris Tucker does in these Rush Hour movies. So aside from cursing, which is not universally agreed upon as sin (at least admit that much) is there anything in these films which is really against the Christian belief? Are Christians sinning because they are acting a character who is sinning? Can Christians not portray villians or shady characters even in a positive story? Cause besides some cursing, there really isn't much negative in these films we are talking about. And again, many do not see cursing as some undeniable sin. Granted, Tucker was playing a good guy in those films, but I'm curious what you think in the more broad spectrum there.

All of these questions have been addressed clearly enough by me in previous posts that I'll decline to fill up Page 9 with repeat information. Please go back over them more carefully. And in regards to your first question, I must ask with no small amount of irritation, you do realize I'm not Christian, right?

gimmepilotwings
05-12-05, 05:03 PM
rotfl
This thread is hilarious. I dont think that there is anything else that can be said, that hasn't already been said that can make the major questions about the Christian faith any clearer.

It is like the blind and deaf leading the blind. You're never going to get anywhere!

rotfl

Rockmjd23
05-12-05, 05:04 PM
rotfl
This thread is hilarious. I dont think that there is anything else that can be said, that hasn't already been said that can make it any clearer.

It is like the blind and deaf leading the blind. You're never going to get anywhere!

rotfl

But, you realize, I don't believe in blind or deaf people, so you're argument doesn't apply to me ;)

gimmepilotwings
05-12-05, 05:05 PM
But, you realize, I don't believe in blind or deaf people, so you're argument doesn't apply to me ;)

But I am going to debate about the deaf and the blind anyway to play "devils advocate" :)

Rockmjd23
05-12-05, 05:06 PM
But I am going to debate about the deaf and the blind anyway to play "devils advocate" :)

These hypocritical blind and deaf people have enslaved me long enough.

Filmmaker
05-12-05, 05:07 PM
Very precise religion actually. I assumed it was implied that as a Christian, one would believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, didn't think I needed to also state that but you're reaching so there it is. Jesus didn't ask for much, the Catholic Church does, but of course being Christian doesn't mean being Catholic. I happen to be both, but we're only talking about Christianity, and my definition is exactly what it is. Oh, and I don't know if you'll get to the pearly gates, that is between you and Him.

So what you're saying is you can't witness even simple aspects of your religion that confuse non-believers and keep us from the so-called Higher Faith? You're a tribute to your Christian brethren...

(though I can't say I've ever heard it involving the definition of 'shit' or Chris Tucker :lol:)

There are those who love me and those who hate me, but neither has ever accused me of being ordinary.

All I was saying that any valid arguments you might be making are diminished by the fact that you are openly ridiculing people, calling them not true christians, and resorting to derogatory comments about the religion. That is not good debate.

Other than some minor cattiness in some of my replies to some of the more poorly reasoned or incendiary posts made, I feel I've donducted myself with a healty measure of objectivity and decency. If you feel I'm insulting you because I call your faith into question, then that would have to return me to the accusation of you having a fragile ego. How should one enter into "proper" debate with you? By recognizing virtue in your opposing position? I do not; that is the very foundation of my debate.

Speaking of which, I have answered the only question posted to me, which was regarding the source of Jesus' one commandment. I gave that source to you, Jesus himself.

You have not answered it, at least not effectively. As I've noted, is not God's commandment that we recognize he gave his only begotten son for our sins? If so, then he doesn't have "one true commandment". If not, then I'll see you in heaven, since I love my community of Men.

gimmepilotwings
05-12-05, 05:07 PM
rotfl

Needed a good laugh.

Filmmaker
05-12-05, 05:08 PM
rotfl
This thread is hilarious. I dont think that there is anything else that can be said, that hasn't already been said that can make the major questions about the Christian faith any clearer.

It is like the blind and deaf leading the blind. You're never going to get anywhere!

rotfl

At least you're accusing Christians of being more handicapped than me! ;)

Filmmaker
05-12-05, 05:09 PM
But, you realize, I don't believe in blind or deaf people, so you're argument doesn't apply to me ;)

Ah, an attempt at wit by equating something that can be easily proven by basic scientific query with something that can not. I'm glad that at least amuses other believers, I guess...

gimmepilotwings
05-12-05, 05:20 PM
At least you're accusing Christians of being more handicapped than me! ;)

This reason that this thread is now 8 pages because instantly clear to me.

Filmmaker
05-12-05, 05:28 PM
Mmm...because Christians aren't open to heathen humor? :confused:

Rockmjd23
05-12-05, 05:38 PM
So what you're saying is you can't witness even simple aspects of your religion that confuse non-believers and keep us from the so-called Higher Faith?

When did I say that?

Other than some minor cattiness in some of my replies to some of the more poorly reasoned or incendiary posts made, I feel I've donducted myself with a healty measure of objectivity and decency. If you feel I'm insulting you because I call your faith into question, then that would have to return me to the accusation of you having a fragile ego. How should one enter into "proper" debate with you? By recognizing virtue in your opposing position? I do not; that is the very foundation of my debate.

Once again, I don't feel insulted, since none of your comments were directed at me. I'm just explaining to you why others might be.


You have not answered it, at least not effectively. As I've noted, is not God's commandment that we recognize he gave his only begotten son for our sins? If so, then he doesn't have "one true commandment". If not, then I'll see you in heaven, since I love my community of Men

Christianity as clearly as it can be defined. If this isnt good enough for you, then I don't know what possibly could be.

Jhn 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Jhn 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
:
Reason why you must believe in Jesus as the son of God to be saved.

Jhn 15:12 This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
Jhn 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

1 Jhn 3:23 And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.

One command summarizes God's will -- yet there are many aspects or outworkings of it.

Jhn 13:35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another

Jesus defining what it means to be a follower of his

Galations 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Romans 13:9-10For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

If you follow Jesus' commandment, you fulfill the law of God

1 Corinthians 13:4-7 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;
does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;
does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth;
bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

1 John 4:19-21
We love Him because He first loved us.
And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also.

Further defining love, that if you love your brother, you love God.

Filmmaker
05-12-05, 05:42 PM
When did I say that?

See two quotes below.

Once again, I don't feel insulted, since none of your comments were directed at me. I'm just explaining to you why others might be.

I'm only interested in open debate; if others can't hang, they're welcome to peruse the 10,000+ other threads here at DVDTalk.

Reason why you must believe in Jesus as the son of God to be saved.

One command summarizes God's will -- yet there are many aspects or outworkings of it.

Sorry, it doesn't follow--God clearly has at least two commandments--believe Christ died for our "sins" and love one another. The "one commandment" you mention can't be the extent of it because it only involves my fellow man and God clearly also commands that I believe his son died for me.

Rockmjd23
05-12-05, 06:15 PM
See two quotes below.

*Checks two posts below* nope, never said that.


Sorry, it doesn't follow--God clearly has at least two commandments--believe Christ died for our "sins" and love one another. The "one commandment" you mention can't be the extent of it because it only involves my fellow man and God clearly also commands that I believe his son died for me.

I look at it this way, and if you disagree, then fine, but you can't refute it any more than I can prove the validity of my faith.

Jesus' followers witnessed his miracles, his death, and ressurection firsthand. Then they wrote it into text, so that further generations would believe. Once you believe, you look to Christ's commandment on how to live your life so that you will be with him when you die. That's my faith right there. The Bible backs it up, so it's good enough for me. Not good enough for you? That's your prerogative.

And to answer you're OP and thread subject (which for some reason you keep moving further and further from), Chris Tucker, like all Christians, has a unique relationship with Jesus that is his own. Is it wrong to do what he does? Maybe, but by judging him, I won't be following Jesus' will ;)

Venusian
05-12-05, 06:50 PM
You posts are becoming petulant--I have responded to every post with an insight into where I find faulty logic; you responded with "no, you're just not listening to them". Please feel free to offer meaningful discourse and go back and show me where my accusations are faulty. Otherwise, your accusation that I'm not listening will appear as it is--wholly without merit or support.
yeah, "They are failing" is very insightful :rolleyes:

Venusian
05-12-05, 06:52 PM
But at least the Bible has the advantage of being codified; your version basically amounts to anything goes, since you're allegedly following a voice from within rather than a commandment laid down from outside yourself.

curious, how is your religion or lack thereof any better?

Venusian
05-12-05, 06:56 PM
I am holding them accountable to God's doctrine as laid out in the Bible; if I can't reasonably do that due to the Bible's interpretabilty problems, then you've helped support me in exposing one of the fatal flaws of Christianity and all other religions. Thanks for that.


Let me summarize this thread as I see it, correct me if I'm wrong.

You think CT is a hypocrite because he glamorizes sin in his movies. you've stated sex and language. I haven't seen Rush Hour in years so you'll have to refresh me on the sex scenes.

We've discussed language here and you think that Christians are being relativistic. However, no Christian (as far as i can tell, point me to the post if i'm wrong) has said they don't believe the Bible. Tasha has said she follows it and the Spirit, but the rest of us have said we follow the Bible (although all of us follow the Spirit as well).

You have quoted some scripture to prove that cursing is a sin. However, the verses you quoted don't show that. Atleast as far as i can tell, no one here but you sees it as that. Dave even showed you the context of some of them but you insist that everyone else is interpreting them as they want and you are the only one who knows the true meaning which we are all ignoring. Am I right?

okay, let's start over.

please state a specific scene in the movie you think Tucker is sinning in and then show scripture that says it is a sin.

be warned, the Christians on this board will take you to task if you quote scripture out of context.

Aldarion
05-12-05, 07:16 PM
That act like I think they should? No, because they'd have to sacrifice their conviction in a supreme being. Assuming they're not going to do that, then I at least hold them accountable for following God's tenets as laid out in the Bible. The more boldly they refuse to do so, the more I will hold them in open contempt for talking a talk when they won't (can't?) walk the walk.

Let me rephrase that... Can you give an example of a Christian (or Christians) that you don't hold in contempt?

Aldarion
05-12-05, 07:24 PM
So once said the 1950s white man to the Negro.

I think you're laying it on a little thick there... More than a little actually. That's not even remotely comparable.

DodgingCars
05-12-05, 07:59 PM
I'd respond to Filmmakers fair, but severely flawed attempts at logical arguements, but I'm afraid that his logic is far too faulty to even attempt to refute. I daresay that any attempt that has been made to make him aware of his disatrous attempts at logic have fallen on deaf ears. Christianity doth not need be defended against such ill-stated arguements. But, I threaten to digress.

It's quite simply the most tiresome chore to put up with such inadequacies.

Shadow Ace
05-12-05, 08:49 PM
I haven't read this whole thread, my attention span is too short, and this may have been posted already, but is this the same Chris Tucker that this thread is about:


APRIL 19--Comedian Chris Tucker was briefly jailed Sunday morning after Georgia cops pulled over his speeding 2005 Bentley when he did not immediately stop for them. Tucker, 33, spent about 30 minutes in the McDuffie County lockup before posting cash bond and being released. According to cops, the "Rush Hour" star, an Atlanta native, was doing 109 mph on Interstate 20 when pulled over by state troopers. He was arrested for reckless driving and fleeing to elude after he did not pull over right away. Tucker is pictured below in a mug shot snapped Sunday. If you're wondering about the orange schmatte that Tucker's wearing, all guests of the McDuffie jail--no matter how short the stay--are required to wear it for their booking photo. (1 page)

Mr. Tucker is the latest addition to our esteemed <a href="http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0419051_chris_tucker_1.html">mug shot gallery</a>.


If it's been posted already, I apologize.

jaeufraser
05-12-05, 09:44 PM
I don't follow--are you saying Chris Tucker's character isn't sinning because he doesn't see it as a sin?

Yes, but the more my arguments expose the Bible's, shall we say, malleability in terms of interpretation, the more it exposes holes in the validity of Christianity itself. Are we really to believe that a supreme being would be so dense as to base the reality of him and his philosophy on a written work so fraught with inconsistencies, continuity flaws and the like that arguments about it started and dissenting factions drew arms against one another before the ink was even dry?



Which returns us to who determines God's doctrine: God, or his followers?



But...in this conversation, it is not God determining their faith. It is you. You've outlined what you think the Bible means, and are holding Christians to it. And when others disagree with your assessment, that's their opinion and is not following the word of god, whereas yours is strictly biblical (wherein the truth is, it is your interpretation versus theirs). What I don't understand is why you've deemed your viewpoint on what the Bible says to be the correct, Godly version, and everyone who disagrees to be the fallible human interpretation. Your views on the the holy book are not necessarily more true then theirs. Granted, if we were to dissect some of it I'm sure I'd find agreement with you on many issues, but as I see faith and spirtuality of this sort as a very personal thing, and that's where it belongs, it seems almost ridiculous to say I don't believe it, but if you do this is what it really means.

Now as to your question why would people believe in something that can be interpreted in so many ways, that really leaves a lot of questions in the air, I could not answer that. I do not believe these things and that's a major reason why. But it's hardly a reason for me to hold all of them in contempt.

So, I know you don't agree with me, but I think you simply have defined the Bible in your own terms. You don't like Christianity so you take your interpretation, and hold everyone to it. If they don't fit into your views of what supposed Christians should be, they're hypocrites. But hypocrisy isn't based off how you see things...it's very internal, and that imo is really the crux of the argument. Even if they are misinterpreting the Bible, there's no hypocrisy if that is what they believe. And I can't really say I care about most people of faith, as it is in general not a negative thing, even if religion has had its hand in some awful things it hardly equates to it all being bad.

j123vt_99
05-12-05, 10:02 PM
WARRENTON, Ga. - Actor Chris Tucker has pleaded guilty to speeding and eluding police during a brief chase last month after which the comedian told authorities he didn't hear their sirens because he was on his way to church.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050512/ap_en_mo/chris_tucker

Mano
05-12-05, 10:25 PM
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0419051_chris_tucker_1.jpg

HistoryProf
05-12-05, 11:14 PM
That is some funny shit

Tommy Ceez
05-13-05, 09:34 AM
`Is that an orange jumpsuit over a real suit?!?!

wlmowery
05-13-05, 09:51 AM
I'd respond to Filmmakers fair, but severely flawed attempts at logical arguements, but I'm afraid that his logic is far too faulty to even attempt to refute. I daresay that any attempt that has been made to make him aware of his disatrous attempts at logic have fallen on deaf ears. Christianity doth not need be defended against such ill-stated arguements. But, I threaten to digress.

It's quite simply the most tiresome chore to put up with such inadequacies.

:D

Well done, well done....

As I recall the Rush Hour movies, they are close ot a line on a few issues to me as a conservative christian. However, I tend to agree with most that there is a difference between obscenity and what was cited by the OP. I try to avoid active participation in both as much as I can. There are a few "lustful" type scenes in both films which I don't necessarily condone. Would I as a christian perform these scenes. No. But as most said, there is some room for discussion as to performance art vs. reality so I wont judge Mr. Tucker on this issue.

DodgingCars
05-13-05, 10:22 AM
As I recall the Rush Hour movies, they are close ot a line on a few issues to me as a conservative christian. However, I tend to agree with most that there is a difference between obscenity and what was cited by the OP. I try to avoid active participation in both as much as I can. There are a few "lustful" type scenes in both films which I don't necessarily condone. Would I as a christian perform these scenes. No. But as most said, there is some room for discussion as to performance art vs. reality so I wont judge Mr. Tucker on this issue.

Yeah, it's been awhile since I've seen either film, so it's hard for me to remember why they received their PG-13 ratings, other than the obvious violence. I don't remember them being necessarily bad though, but its hard for me to defend every bit of them as I can't remember everything.

But yeah, I agree with you.

Dimension X
05-13-05, 10:48 AM
I'd respond to Filmmakers fair, but severely flawed attempts at logical arguements, but I'm afraid that his logic is far too faulty to even attempt to refute. I daresay that any attempt that has been made to make him aware of his disatrous attempts at logic have fallen on deaf ears. Christianity doth not need be defended against such ill-stated arguements. But, I threaten to digress.

It's quite simply the most tiresome chore to put up with such inadequacies.
:lol:
`Is that an orange jumpsuit over a real suit?!?!
If you're wondering about the orange schmatte that Tucker's wearing, all guests of the McDuffie jail--no matter how short the stay--are required to wear it for their booking photo. (1 page)

gimmepilotwings
05-13-05, 11:30 AM
Hmm.... Now I remember it. Most people probably forgot this...

"Thou shalt not drive over the speed limit in your Bentley ."

Can we just say that most of us do not look up to Chris Tucker as being a model Christian and that we should look to someone else for spiritual guideness?

Wouldn't that end our little debate?

Rockmjd23
05-13-05, 11:51 AM
Hmm.... Now I remember it. Most people probably forgot this...

"Thou shalt not drive over the speed limit in your Bentley ."

Can we just say that most of us do not look up to Chris Tucker as being a model Christian and that we should look to someone else for spiritual guideness?

Wouldn't that end our little debate?

The debate is already ended.

Filmmaker
05-14-05, 09:39 AM
*Checks two posts below* nope, never said that.

Those are direct copies of your earlier quotes. What the hell do you mean you never said them?

I look at it this way, and if you disagree, then fine, but you can't refute it any more than I can prove the validity of my faith.

That's what I love about you Christians--you'll just make up whatever parameters to Christianity you desire and cry foul when someone calls it into question because it's all about your "personal relationship" with Christ. So again, we have "anything goes"; again, we have moral relativity; again, we have no absolutes whatsoever in a religion that demands them. You're *this* close to humanism, if you'd just drop the Jesus crutch.

Jesus' followers witnessed his miracles, his death, and ressurection firsthand. Then they wrote it into text, so that further generations would believe. Once you believe, you look to Christ's commandment on how to live your life so that you will be with him when you die. That's my faith right there. The Bible backs it up, so it's good enough for me. Not good enough for you? That's your prerogative.

You're still ducking my questions--you submitted God has "one true" commandment; I showed you two. Do you have a germane response?

And to answer you're OP and thread subject (which for some reason you keep moving further and further from)

Hey, I'm just fielding the negative feedback, questions and commentary--if they pull the thread off topic, blame those pursuing my original assertion.

Chris Tucker, like all Christians, has a unique relationship with Jesus that is his own. Is it wrong to do what he does? Maybe, but by judging him, I won't be following Jesus' will ;)

But, again, you do realize I'm not Christian, yes?

Filmmaker
05-14-05, 09:41 AM
yeah, "They are failing" is very insightful :rolleyes:

It is accurate, because you've failed to make your case of where they haven't. Please quit ducking the isue and provide evidence.

Filmmaker
05-14-05, 09:42 AM
curious, how is your religion or lack thereof any better?

You're asking me to deconstruct the virtues of secular humanism, an entire branch of philosophy, in a mere forum thread??? Respectfully, I will decline the offer and entreat you to research the topic on your own. I will go so far as to say it is built on rational principles that can be demonstrated and supported through scientific inquiry, not superstition and invention of imaginary deities running the universe, so that's point one in its favor. There are untold others.

Filmmaker
05-14-05, 09:58 AM
I haven't seen Rush Hour in years so you'll have to refresh me on the sex scenes.

I already mentioned some of them; there's no overt sex--these aren't R-rated films, but plenty of lasciviousness. Witness virtually any scene invloving a hot chick(s).

You have quoted some scripture to prove that cursing is a sin. However, the verses you quoted don't show that. Atleast as far as i can tell, no one here but you sees it as that. Dave even showed you the context of some of them but you insist that everyone else is interpreting them as they want and you are the only one who knows the true meaning which we are all ignoring. Am I right?

You're somewhat wrong--a few compelling points have been made against my interpretation, but they all fail to one degree or another (so far) because they fail to address how the usage of "shit" or any other curse word avoids the "filthy communication" and "idle word" usage of which God warned against. They take the argument down to the level of subjectivity, which renders God's word moot. Why lay down commandments if each us if left to determine what is and is not covered under the umbrella of said commandments?

please state a specific scene in the movie you think Tucker is sinning in and then show scripture that says it is a sin.

I've already done so; to do so again would be to backslide the topic and increase the thread size even more than it's already bloated length. Please feel free to read back over it.

be warned, the Christians on this board will take you to task if you quote scripture out of context.

Because they're the only ones with valid perspective on scripture, right? Criminee...

Filmmaker
05-14-05, 10:08 AM
Let me rephrase that... Can you give an example of a Christian (or Christians) that you don't hold in contempt?

Though he has moments of hypocrisy in his faith, the best modern example of a Christian I have unwavering respect for is Bono, from the rock group U2. He practices a unique fusion of Christianity and bald-faced humanism that I would desperately like to see spread through the ranks of theists. Perhaps best yet is that no man is as quick to call out his hypocrisy than himself.

But I can't help but take the question itself into question--do you refer to holding people's faith and how they align with it in contempt, or holding Christians in complete contempt because they believe in God. If the latter, then I would have to include my entire family so let's be very clear that it is hypocrisy in terms of not following your faith to the letter, in allowing your own perceptions to cloud God's alleged intentions for you, that I hold in contempt, not just so-called believers for believing.

Filmmaker
05-14-05, 10:09 AM
I think you're laying it on a little thick there... More than a little actually. That's not even remotely comparable.

Why? Are you a Negro? Are you a non-theist? No to both? Then from where do you empower yourself to judge?

Filmmaker
05-14-05, 10:12 AM
I'd respond to Filmmakers fair, but severely flawed attempts at logical arguements, but I'm afraid that his logic is far too faulty to even attempt to refute. I daresay that any attempt that has been made to make him aware of his disatrous attempts at logic have fallen on deaf ears. Christianity doth not need be defended against such ill-stated arguements. But, I threaten to digress.

It's quite simply the most tiresome chore to put up with such inadequacies.

Sorry to inconvenience you, kind sir; please allow me to return you to your righteous business of witnessing your most beautiful and high-minded faith to those of us willing to be redeemed.

:rolleyes:

If he exists, I hope God is as impressed with your skill in proving the case for faith as you are. Whatever the outcome, I will remain wholly underwhelmed by your contributions thus far.

Filmmaker
05-14-05, 10:52 AM
But...in this conversation, it is not God determining their faith. It is you. You've outlined what you think the Bible means, and are holding Christians to it. And when others disagree with your assessment, that's their opinion and is not following the word of god, whereas yours is strictly biblical (wherein the truth is, it is your interpretation versus theirs). What I don't understand is why you've deemed your viewpoint on what the Bible says to be the correct, Godly version, and everyone who disagrees to be the fallible human interpretation. Your views on the the holy book are not necessarily more true then theirs. Granted, if we were to dissect some of it I'm sure I'd find agreement with you on many issues, but as I see faith and spirtuality of this sort as a very personal thing, and that's where it belongs, it seems almost ridiculous to say I don't believe it, but if you do this is what it really means.

I'm not forcing them to believe my interpretations; if that ws the case, I'd have laid down my views and never returned to this post again. What I am doing is allowing them to debate why their interpretation is more salient than mine. Very few are passing muster, but I've seen hope in at least two posters thus far.

Now as to your question why would people believe in something that can be interpreted in so many ways, that really leaves a lot of questions in the air, I could not answer that. I do not believe these things and that's a major reason why.

Then I'm not interested in your feedback on that issue--it was a question meant for Christians.

But it's hardly a reason for me to hold all of them in contempt.

For holding what is most dear to them a faith wherein they can't even come to an agreement amongst themselves on the fundamentals? I'm afraid I'll have to disagree. The evidence of MAJOR flaws in Christianity, from Biblical accuracy to moral consistency to church dogma, can be evidenced with even the most surface-level research, but Christians insist on clinging to a rope of wet tissue. I think that's quite due contempt.

So, I know you don't agree with me, but I think you simply have defined the Bible in your own terms. You don't like Christianity so you take your interpretation, and hold everyone to it. If they don't fit into your views of what supposed Christians should be, they're hypocrites. But hypocrisy isn't based off how you see things...it's very internal, and that imo is really the crux of the argument. Even if they are misinterpreting the Bible, there's no hypocrisy if that is what they believe.

I can't agree here because the bulk of the arguments I've heard here that take my views to task do so from the point of view of moral relativism, and allowing human concerns to override God's dictations. In other words, they practice hypocrisy because they introduce moral relativism into a religion that eschews it. The flip side, of course, the truth that we're both working with in spite of appearing to fight one another is that the Bible can't function without introducing moral relativism. Therefore, Christianity collapses in on itself because God refutes moral relativism but lies down his dicates, his "Word", in a document rife with interpretation problems. How else to deal with the Bible but via relativity? Is anyone else amused that many of us are arriving at the same place, but still fighting each other?

Filmmaker
05-14-05, 10:55 AM
Can we just say that most of us do not look up to Chris Tucker as being a model Christian and that we should look to someone else for spiritual guideness?

Wouldn't that end our little debate?

Though I would agree with the sentiment, it neglects the fact that the debate was never "should Chris Tucker be worshipped over Christ?" but "is Chris Tucker a hypocritical Christian?" And the debate rages on...

Filmmaker
05-14-05, 10:56 AM
The debate is already ended.

Then I can only assume I won, since you have failed to follow through your assertions to a reasonable conclusion.

Rockmjd23
05-14-05, 11:08 AM
Then I can only assume I won, since you have failed to follow through your assertions to a reasonable conclusion.

rotfl

Filmmaker
05-14-05, 12:00 PM
Victory it is, since you simply refuse to support your assertions.

tasha99
05-14-05, 12:07 PM
Then I can only assume I won, since you have failed to follow through your assertions to a reasonable conclusion.

I'm sorry but I have to agree with Rockmjd23's amusement at this. You argue no differently from a religious zealot (not listening and often not respecting other people's opinions). Anyone even trying to communicate with you on this has a little bit of Don Quixote in them. Maybe someday you will learn to accept that people with differing opinions are still due respect.

Is it just Christians you hold in such contempt or all people with faiths that differ from yours?

Filmmaker
05-14-05, 01:06 PM
I'm sorry but I have to agree with Rockmjd23's amusement at this. You argue no differently from a religious zealot (not listening and often not respecting other people's opinions). Anyone even trying to communicate with you on this has a little bit of Don Quixote in them. Maybe someday you will learn to accept that people with differing opinions are still due respect.

I am debating; that means I post why I feel you are wrong and you post why you feel I am wrong, and we work toward consensus. Debates live and die by the level of logical fallacy at work, and I feel there is a substantial amount at work here from my detractors, but when I call such logical fallacies out, rather than effectively countering my claims, I get people like you and Rockmjd23 crying that I'm a zealot and contemptuous. Really, truthfully, mercifully, I ask that if all you have left to offer is character assassination, your value to this thread has become nil--if you wish to continue debating the issue, let's get to it. If you wish only to debate the debator, then good day to you. I'm sure you will be of better use elsewhere.

DodgingCars
05-14-05, 01:27 PM
Can't we all agree that Filmmaker has won? Holy cow people... Don't you know when you've been whipped by superior intellect?

tasha99
05-14-05, 01:31 PM
I am debating; that means I post why I feel you are wrong and you post why you feel I am wrong, and we work toward consensus. Debates live and die by the level of logical fallacy at work, and I feel there is a substantial amount at work here from my detractors, but when I call such logical fallacies out, rather than effectively countering my claims, I get people like you and Rockmjd23 crying that I'm a zealot and contemptuous. Really, truthfully, mercifully, I ask that if all you have left to offer is character assassination, your value to this thread has become nil--if you wish to continue debating the issue, let's get to it. If you wish only to debate the debator, then good day to you. I'm sure you will be of better use elsewhere.[/QUOTE]

You're "debating" about something spiritual, trying to apply logic to faith (and not even your own faith). Imo, that is a losing strategy.

Filmmaker
05-14-05, 01:31 PM
Can't we all agree that Filmmaker has won? Holy cow people... Don't you know when you've been whipped by superior intellect?

I'll only accept it if you mean it... ;)

Filmmaker
05-14-05, 01:35 PM
You're "debating" about something spiritual, trying to apply logic to faith (and not even your own faith). Imo, that is a losing strategy.

But who's the loser? The person fortified by logic, supportable evidence and provable truth or the person who knowingly says their faith is not fortified by any of the above?

DodgingCars
05-14-05, 01:35 PM
I'll only accept it if you mean it... ;)

I only mean it if you accept it.

Filmmaker
05-14-05, 01:36 PM
I only mean it if you accept it.

You'll only accept that I'm the superior intellect if I accept it? Done, homeslice...

tasha99
05-14-05, 01:41 PM
But who's the loser? The person fortified by logic, supportable evidence and provable truth or the person who knowingly says their faith is not fortified by any of the above?

The thing is you aren't arguing with truth. For example, you compared me to David Koresh for believing in my inner light, when the Branch Davidians are a group that are very into interpreting the Bible (and especially Revelations). You basically called me crazy (character assassination?)

No faith can be explained by logic alone. If you don't value or see the spiritual, so be it. That doesn't mean it isn't there.

Aldarion
05-14-05, 01:47 PM
Why? Are you a Negro? Are you a non-theist? No to both? Then from where do you empower yourself to judge?

It is silly to say that one can only assess an experience if one has directly experienced it themselves. Since you're not Christian can you really understand whether a Christian is being true to their faith or not then? If you base your arguments on your selections of Scripture, couldn't I do something similar with regards to comparing the situations of blacks in the 1950s and non-theists today?

I can only say that I'm sorry for you if you feel that your "suffering" is equivalent to that of blacks in the 1950s.