I will admit he has a sexy voice.Riddikulus said:
Lovely English voice. And he's the proto bad-boy vamp! :laugh:akimori makoto said:I will admit he has a sexy voice.Riddikulus said:
C'mon, you are from Oz, he has nothing on you! :akimori makoto said:I will admit he has a sexy voice.Riddikulus said:
I would like to remind you fine gentlemen and the rest of the posters on this thread that this part of the forum is for general conversation and NOT for debate, nitpicking, abrasive language, or basically anything outside of polite discussion. This is a public warning to all of you to stick to the rules & realize what thread you are posting in. Keep in mind that you could start a daughter post/thread in just about any other part of the board. Hint, hint.orthonorm said:You should hear how I talk to my friends. It is much worse. And I ain't the one throwing insults. That would you telling me about my ivory tower.Gebre Menfes Kidus said:orthonorm said:You are good at framing debate where no one was talking.Gebre Menfes Kidus said:IsmiLiora said:I don't mean to pick on you, my friend, but I've always thought about this.Gebre Menfes Kidus said:So it must be offensive to be artistic? Not gonna buy into that my friend. I always say that any message or story can be creatively portrayed in a manner that is suitable for children. If an artist has to use profanity, nudity, vulgarity, and gore to convey his point, then he is a poor artist indeed. And sadly, or society is rife with very poor artists. But that doesn't mean we have to settle for the garbage they produce. T
I guess the Lives of the Saints is beneath your artistic level. (Or is it perhaps above it?)
The Bible itself, as well as the history of the Church, has stories that I wouldn't consider "Child-friendly" at all.
Yes, companies do abridge the Bible and put it in terms that younger children can understand and appreciate, but I think is fine for them. I
But I've wondered whether we, as adults, should ourselves seek the "child-friendly" route. We can read the Bible. We read literature that isn't always "appropriate." Of course it isn't kosher to love vulgarity, but watching sugar-coated stories about real-life events that were much more raw, tragic, etc., comes off as so false. I'd rather not watch any movies than have to watch the stuff that is put out by today's evangelical Christian market (I don't know of the movie you're talking about, so I am not being specific here).
I used to be surrounded by adults who would ooh and ahh over movies like Fireproof and One Night With the King (awful, really). I really don't understand it myself. I think that we could use to inject some more reality in movies, not just what Focus on the Family happens to find appropriate at any given time.
But I also understand the critique that we shouldn't necessarily be wanting more sex, vulgar language, etc. in movies. I happen to stand on the other side of that, though.
The Bible will offend everyone, as the Truth always does. But there is righteous way to convey the Truth, and I doubt if any Orhtodox Christian will accuse the prophets and apostles of conveying their message in an unrighteous manner.
There is a huge difference between the way Dostoevsky conveys dark and disturbing realities and the way Hollywood typically does. Dostoevsky was an artist, and he didn't need to graphically describe sexual acts and body parts in a salacious manner. He didn't need to have his characters curse profusely in order to make us realize they were reprobate. True artists don't have to sugar coat anything, but neither do they have to be gratuitous in order to convey their message. It's called creativity, of which there is a dearth in our current society.
Not fair enough.
You have your emotional and idiosyncratic axes to grind.
That is fine. Just don't go looking for them in hands where they ain't.
And really given your recent list of thinkers you hold in esteem and taste in film, I'll pass on your aesthetic judgement.
Yeah, the Bible: incestual, homosexual rape? But hey it is the truth. And I knew what I was reading when I was kid when I read it.
The Bible would be rated NC-17 if it were filmed true to form.
Gosh my friend, whose got the axe to grind here? Why all the venom in your comments to me? We can have an amicable discussion even in disagreement can't we? ???
This is called internetz polemics.
This ain't venom, this is lightweight.
You aren't used to being called out on your poor use of rhetoric. Put "Selam" after you misconstrue what someone says and toss in a personal jab and all is OK? Fine by me. But show me where I am wrong.
You are a moving target. You argue with someone about something they have said.
And for some reason OC.net hasn't saved any of my drafts this morning. I had some real zingers about MLK.
Just as a note, that is a very unsubstantial interpretation.Volnutt said:He was drunk and Ham started it. He was also pretty angry afterward.orthonorm said:Noah did have sex with his son.Volnutt said:I don't know which genre it would be intended as, other than as an attempted explanation of the iniquity of Ammon and Moab. I have a hard time believing Peter would actually call Lot a righteous man if he really did rape his own daughters, that far dwarfs any other Patriarchal wrong-doing.orthonorm said:That story is rich. Gotta know your genres to make sense of that one.Volnutt said:What's a coy hint? The Bible says Lot's daughters got him drunk and raped him, it doesn't need to describe every pelvic thrust.IsmiLiora said:Point is, if we're reading about things that happened, I want to read about things that happened, not just coy hints and winks from an author or director.
I got drunk and my daughters raped me . . .
Verboten vulgarity replaced with something more acceptable - PtA