The Passion of the Christ -- ** SPOILERS **

  • dekanos
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • dekanos
  • Posts: 49

Post 3+ Months Ago

** SPOILERS ***

He dies. Gets nailed to a cross.

Then he comes back.
  • allgoodpeople
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 379
  • Loc: here

Post 3+ Months Ago

dekanos wrote:
** SPOILERS ***

He dies. Gets nailed to a cross.

Then he comes back.


actually, he gets nailed to a cross, then he dies, then he comes back.

mark
  • whatlikesit12345
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1211

Post 3+ Months Ago

i want to see that movie <insert mad comment here> I am to young<end insert mad comment here>

the person who played jesus got really injured durin that movie making. struke by lighten, whiped for real(not on purpose) and dislocated both sholders
  • b_heyer
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 4580
  • Loc: Maryland

Post 3+ Months Ago

Well Mel Gibson is a great actor, but I personally won't be attending the showing.
  • RichB
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1121
  • Loc: Boston

Post 3+ Months Ago

The guy who plays Jesus got struck by lightning? That can't be a good sign.
  • b_heyer
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 4580
  • Loc: Maryland

Post 3+ Months Ago

Well no body else wanted to help Gibson produce the film so I guess god didn't want to either.
  • allgoodpeople
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 379
  • Loc: here

Post 3+ Months Ago

b_heyer wrote:
Well no body else wanted to help Gibson produce the film so I guess god didn't want to either.


c'mon now. i highly doubt the fact that hollywood wouldn't touch the movie with a 10 foot pole had anything to do with God. a very good (non-religious) commentary on the movie can be read at http://www.time.com/time/columnist/corl ... 38,00.html .

In the interest of speaking up for people of faith who still hold to the basic principles of reason, the fact "bad" things happened on the set is not the sign of some sort of curse, any more than the fact that "bad" things happened on the set of The Exorcist meant anything. Nor does the fact that the movie had an outstanding opening mean that God approves of the movie. These things happen for very normal and un-spiritual or non-supernatural reasons. God causes "the sun and the rain to fall on the just and the unjust alike."

Personally, I haven't seen the movie yet, although I plan to. I heard about Cavaziel getting beat up pretty bad during the making of the film. Didn't sound fun at all. I know I wouldn't want to find out what a lashing felt like for real.

Mark
  • allgoodpeople
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 379
  • Loc: here

Post 3+ Months Ago

whatlikesit12345 wrote:
i want to see that movie <insert mad comment here> I am to young<end insert mad comment here>



I'm sure you could find somebody to take you. if worse came to worse, you could go to your local church and ask someone from there to go with you. they'd probably want to get permission from your parents first, but I'm sure you could arrange something if your parents went along.

Mark
  • bluedragon
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • bluedragon
  • Posts: 453

Post 3+ Months Ago

Its a good movie. Thats all.
  • Nego
  • Expert
  • Expert
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 697
  • Loc: Chicago

Post 3+ Months Ago

I just saw it already and I strongly recommend that everyone go see it. The crucifixion scene is very moving.
  • dekanos
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • dekanos
  • Posts: 49

Post 3+ Months Ago

allgoodpeople wrote:
dekanos wrote:
** SPOILERS ***

He dies. Gets nailed to a cross.

Then he comes back.


actually, he gets nailed to a cross, then he dies, then he comes back.


No contradiction there. I didn't say that he died THEN got nailed to a cross. I said that he died AND got crucified.
  • b_heyer
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 4580
  • Loc: Maryland

Post 3+ Months Ago

No actually you said "He dies. Gets nailed to a cross. Then he come back."

Thats like saying "I lit the match. I picked a match out of the box. Then I started the fire."
  • dekanos
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • dekanos
  • Posts: 49

Post 3+ Months Ago

b_heyer wrote:
No actually you said "He dies. Gets nailed to a cross. Then he come back."

Thats like saying "I lit the match. I picked a match out of the box. Then I started the fire."

And what's wrong with that? That's only a contradiction if you say, "I lit the match, THEN picked the match out of the box."

There's nothing wrong with the phrasing that I used. People say things like that all the time. If someone says, "I ate. Had a Big Mac," do you assume that he first ate, THEN got himself a burger?

Stop pretending that there's an invisible "THEN" where no such word was used. This objection of yours is truly ridiculous.
  • whatlikesit12345
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1211

Post 3+ Months Ago

my chruch is going. :) but i think that i would have to get something signed. my parents aren't going to do that
  • IH8Purple
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1214
  • Loc: Somewhere on Google Earth

Post 3+ Months Ago

What is it rated?
  • whatlikesit12345
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1211

Post 3+ Months Ago

R
  • VTHokies
  • Novice
  • Novice
  • VTHokies
  • Posts: 18

Post 3+ Months Ago

IH8Purple wrote:
What is it rated?

R

they said on TV that since this is R, that they don't think any movie will ever get an NC17
  • bluedragon
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • bluedragon
  • Posts: 453

Post 3+ Months Ago

"R"
  • allgoodpeople
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 379
  • Loc: here

Post 3+ Months Ago

VTHokies wrote:
IH8Purple wrote:
What is it rated?

R

they said on TV that since this is R, that they don't think any movie will ever get an NC17


i don't know about that. americans are pretty uptight about sexuality but comfortable with violence. if something sufficiently sexual came along, it would get an NC17

mark
  • b_heyer
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 4580
  • Loc: Maryland

Post 3+ Months Ago

Heheh I love it.

It's alright for my kids to go see violent movies (claim to reasons kids go psycho and hurt people).

But I don't want them seeing anything with sex in it, that could just corrupt their little minds. (rolls eyes)
  • bluedragon
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • bluedragon
  • Posts: 453

Post 3+ Months Ago

But theres no "Sexuality" in it, just violence. But it is Freedom Of Speech.
  • b_heyer
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 4580
  • Loc: Maryland

Post 3+ Months Ago

That's why it's rated R and not NC17, becuase there is NO sexuality/sexual content.
  • allgoodpeople
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 379
  • Loc: here

Post 3+ Months Ago

dekanos wrote:
b_heyer wrote:
No actually you said "He dies. Gets nailed to a cross. Then he come back."

Thats like saying "I lit the match. I picked a match out of the box. Then I started the fire."

And what's wrong with that? That's only a contradiction if you say, "I lit the match, THEN picked the match out of the box."

There's nothing wrong with the phrasing that I used. People say things like that all the time. If someone says, "I ate. Had a Big Mac," do you assume that he first ate, THEN got himself a burger?

Stop pretending that there's an invisible "THEN" where no such word was used. This objection of yours is truly ridiculous.


In the english language, when we describe a series of events it is implied that they are listed in order. unless otherwise specified they are assumed to be listed in order. so, in a sense, there is an invisible "then" there.

In the example you supply, the big mac is not an event itself, it is an additional descriptor belonging to the original action of eating. however, if the above person said "I ate, I drank, I got up and left" it would be understood that the person first ate something, then drank something, then left, even if they first drank then ate then left.

Mark
  • allgoodpeople
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 379
  • Loc: here

Post 3+ Months Ago

b_heyer wrote:
Heheh I love it.

It's alright for my kids to go see violent movies (claim to reasons kids go psycho and hurt people).

But I don't want them seeing anything with sex in it, that could just corrupt their little minds. (rolls eyes)


i hear ya there b_heyer. europeans are the opposite: they tend to be sensitive to violence but very comfortable with sexuality. you go walking down the street and there's posters with boobs everywhere advertising anything you can think of. i did a double take the first few weeks I was in germany! porn stores all over the place too.

Mark
  • dekanos
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • dekanos
  • Posts: 49

Post 3+ Months Ago

allgoodpeople wrote:
dekanos wrote:
b_heyer wrote:
No actually you said "He dies. Gets nailed to a cross. Then he come back."

Thats like saying "I lit the match. I picked a match out of the box. Then I started the fire."

And what's wrong with that? That's only a contradiction if you say, "I lit the match, THEN picked the match out of the box."

There's nothing wrong with the phrasing that I used. People say things like that all the time. If someone says, "I ate. Had a Big Mac," do you assume that he first ate, THEN got himself a burger?

Stop pretending that there's an invisible "THEN" where no such word was used. This objection of yours is truly ridiculous.


In the english language, when we describe a series of events it is implied that they are listed in order. unless otherwise specified they are assumed to be listed in order.


Absolutely not true. In fact, common sense dictates otherwise.

If I say, "I hate my oil changed. I had my tired inflated. I had my windshield wipers replaced," it does not imply that those events occured in that particular sequence. Rather, it simply means that all those events took place, with absolutely no regard for sequence. One might assume that they happened in that particular order, but this is a reckless and unwarranted assumption.

Indeed, everyday examples abound. If I say, "I went out with Chelsea on a date. I picked her up at seven," this does not imply that the date occured before I picked her up. Similarly, if I say, "I finished grad school last year. I wrote my thesis on Aztec culture," it does not imply that I finished grad school before writing my thesis. And so forth, and so on.

You are not going to win this argument. I can trot out dozens of examples which prove this point... but the examples which I've already mentioned are more than enough.

Any "implication" of sequence exists purely in your mind. There is absolutely no rule of English grammar wich states that "Statement A. Sttement B. Statement C." automatically mans that A occured before B, or that B happened before C.
  • IH8Purple
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1214
  • Loc: Somewhere on Google Earth

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
it is rated R


heh movie to Canada, we could give goat's feces about that kind of stuff, generally your "R" is the ecuivalent of our "14A" which means that you have to be 14 to see the movie alone, but if you are with someone 18 plus, you can go in at the age of 8
  • dekanos
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • dekanos
  • Posts: 49

Post 3+ Months Ago

allgoodpeople wrote:
dekanos wrote:
In the example you supply, the big mac is not an event itself, it is an additional descriptor belonging to the original action of eating.


The Big Mac was not an event, but getting the Big Mac was. Surely that's not hard to understand.

Again, if I say, "I ate. I got a Big Mac," this does not mean that procuring the hamburger occured after eating. No reasonable individual would insist that it does.

Quote:
however, if the above person said "I ate, I drank, I got up and left" it would be understood that the person first ate something, then drank something, then left, even if they first drank then ate then left.


You might infer that, but that would be a false inference. A reasonable indivdual would NOT infer that all your eating occured before all your drinking. Rather, a reasonable individual would simply infer that you ate AND drank, without insisiting on any particular order to these events.
  • IH8Purple
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1214
  • Loc: Somewhere on Google Earth

Post 3+ Months Ago

dekanos wrote:
You might infer that, but that would be a false inference. A reasonable indivdual would NOT infer that all your eating occured before all your drinking. Rather, a reasonable individual would simply infer that you ate AND drank, without insisiting on any particular order to these events.


A reasonable reader would never ASSUME event happened in the order other than that of which they were given. A proper reader should take everything at face value unless it is know that there is a bias in the description of the event, in which case the reader would still assume that those events happened, but might be a little leary on assuming that all information given was correct
  • b_heyer
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 4580
  • Loc: Maryland

Post 3+ Months Ago

Actually Dekanos, with your previous examples none of them actually abide
to our current argument. The third sentence MUST come after the previous
two because in your first post you stated "then". The word "then" delimits a
state of time, which occurs after the previously mentioned.

Then is defined as: Soon afterward, or immediately; next; afterward.

Also with your original statement there is no need for inference, or any need
for me to "create" a pattern of events. I simply have to go look up in the
bible and I will see that Jesus was nailed to the cross, then died, then rose
from the dead. That IS how it happened, there IS NO inference there, it's
fact, or at least cited as such from the bible.

I have never seen a work of prose written in non-inverse sentence structure
where the events fell into reverse order. It defies logic to state event A
after even B occurs.

In the Big Mac example "Had" does not imply "ate" so he could have easily
gone to eat someplace and had a big mac in his pocket.
  • b_heyer
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 4580
  • Loc: Maryland

Post 3+ Months Ago

dekanos wrote:

Again, if I say, "I ate. I got a Big Mac," this does not mean that procuring the hamburger occured after eating. No reasonable individual would insist that it does.


I can't count the number of times that my parents went out to eat, and/then/also got something to bring home for me.
  • dekanos
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • dekanos
  • Posts: 49

Post 3+ Months Ago

b_heyer wrote:
dekanos wrote:

Again, if I say, "I ate. I got a Big Mac," this does not mean that procuring the hamburger occured after eating. No reasonable individual would insist that it does.


I can't count the number of times that my parents went out to eat, and/then/also got something to bring home for me.

But that's quite different from insisting that it MUST be interpreted in that fashion. It CAN be interepreted that way, but not necessarily so.

Do you understand that distinction yet?
  • b_heyer
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 4580
  • Loc: Maryland

Post 3+ Months Ago

I do but you obviously don't, since you would call me an "unreasonable individual" if I thought that the "procuring [of] the haburger occured after eating".


Riddle me this, riddle me that.
  • dekanos
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • dekanos
  • Posts: 49

Post 3+ Months Ago

IH8Purple wrote:
dekanos wrote:
You might infer that, but that would be a false inference. A reasonable indivdual would NOT infer that all your eating occured before all your drinking. Rather, a reasonable individual would simply infer that you ate AND drank, without insisiting on any particular order to these events.


A reasonable reader would never ASSUME event happened in the order other than that of which they were given.


A reasonable reader would not assume ANYTHING about the order of events, except where supported by the context or logical necessity.

If I say, "We ate, drank and made merry," would an intelligent reader assume that these events occured in that specifici sequence? Or would an intelligent, reasonable individual simply assume that these actions all took place, possibly at the same time?

Look, I've provided several examples which show that this imaginary grammatical rule of yours does not exist. Why don't you cite some textbook on English grammar which demonstrates that it does?


By way of response, I'd also like to point you to this article by Yale linguistics professor Laurence R. Horn, which amply shows that your claim is incorrect. Remember, this is a linguistics professor at work, and in his article, he argues that the mere enumeration of events without an overt connective does not necessarily imply a specific sequence. Indeed, he goes out of his way to stress that the sequence is ambiguous in such cases.
  • IH8Purple
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1214
  • Loc: Somewhere on Google Earth

Post 3+ Months Ago

dekanos wrote:
"We ate, drank and made merry,"


umm if you put AND in there, you are making a list, and I can assuse that you ate, drank, and made merry at the same time
  • b_heyer
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 4580
  • Loc: Maryland

Post 3+ Months Ago

Dekanos, when trying to prove a point please make sure you stick to the original one.

The original one was compromised of three separate sentences, where the third sentence started with 'then'.

Ready, set, go.
  • dekanos
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • dekanos
  • Posts: 49

Post 3+ Months Ago

b_heyer wrote:
I do but you obviously don't, since you would call me an "unreasonable individual" if I thought that the "procuring [of] the haburger occured after eating".


If you assume that it NECESSARILY occured that way, then yes, you are being unreasonable.

Again, let me explain this. The fact that the procurement of the Big Mac COULD have occured after eating does not mean that it NECESSARILY happened that way, as your imaginary grammatical rule would imply. Your statement is a special case of the "hasty generalization" logical fallacy (described here.

Remember, your claim isn't simply that a listing of events COULD be interpreted to imply sequentiality. Rather, your claim is that they MUST be interpreted that way, except where a different order is specifically given. Ergo, merely arguing that the Big Mac COULD have been procured after eating odes not support your claim.
  • b_heyer
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 4580
  • Loc: Maryland

Post 3+ Months Ago

So what your telling me is if I was telling you that "I went out to eat. I got a Big Mac." and you assumed I had a big mac to eat, but I knew I actually ate, then got a big mac to bring home with me, and insisted that was how it was, you'de tell me I was being unreasonable?
  • dekanos
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • dekanos
  • Posts: 49

Post 3+ Months Ago

b_heyer wrote:
Dekanos, when trying to prove a point please make sure you stick to the original one.

The original one was compromised of three separate sentences, where the third sentence started with 'then'.


The second and third sentences were connected by "then." The first and second -- the ones under dispute -- were not. ERGO, your objection is irrelevant.

Try again. Why don't you start by digging up those textbooks I asked for? Or why not tell us why we should believe you, instead of that Yale linguistics professor whose writing I cited?
  • dekanos
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • dekanos
  • Posts: 49

Post 3+ Months Ago

b_heyer wrote:
So what your telling me is if I was telling you that "I went out to eat. I got a Big Mac." and you assumed I had a big mac to eat, but I knew I actually ate, then got a big mac to bring home with me, and insisted that was how it was, you'de tell me I was being unreasonable?


Listen. Very. Closely.

I'm saying that the scenario which you painted is a POSSIBLE interpretation. As the person uttering these sentences, you are free to testify to the actual sequence of events.

I'm saying it would be unreasonable to insist that your wording MUsT NECESSARILY imply that the events ("eating" and "getting") happened in that specific sequence, as your imaginary grammatical rule insists they must have done.

Again, there's a big difference between saying that a statement CAN be intepreted in a certain way, and that it MUST be. To defend your claim, you must demonstrate that your interpretation is the only possible interpretation. So far, you have done no such thing.
  • IH8Purple
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1214
  • Loc: Somewhere on Google Earth

Post 3+ Months Ago

dekanos wrote:
Try again. Why don't you start by digging up those textbooks I asked for? Or why not tell us why we should believe you, instead of that Yale linguistics professor whose writing I cited?


Funney that, although I did not get a chacne to read through the 44 pages, due to your inability to not focus attention to where your piont was, however, from what I read, I did notice that he brought alot of attention to taking things at face value, in the order they are given
  • grinch2171
  • Moderator
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 6819
  • Loc: Martinsburg, WV

Post 3+ Months Ago

Funny how this started off as a conversation about the movie and turned into a debate about grammar.

Anyway, I want to see the movie, some non-religous friends went to see it and said they were moved by it. I guess watching a man being beaten for 2 hours and then crucified would get to you.

I hope I used the word then correctly.
  • allgoodpeople
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 379
  • Loc: here

Post 3+ Months Ago

grinch2171 wrote:
Funny how this started off as a conversation about the movie and turned into a debate about grammar.

Anyway, I want to see the movie, some non-religous friends went to see it and said they were moved by it. I guess watching a man being beaten for 2 hours and then crucified would get to you.

I hope I used the word then correctly.


i've had the same thought, but I was having too much fun watching the conversation develop. :lol:

mark
  • IH8Purple
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1214
  • Loc: Somewhere on Google Earth

Post 3+ Months Ago

allgoodpeople wrote:
i've had the same thought, but I was having too much fun watching the conversation develop. :lol:


Watching it?? you STARTED it

allgoodpeople wrote:
dekanos wrote:
** SPOILERS ***

He dies. Gets nailed to a cross.

Then he comes back.


actually, he gets nailed to a cross, then he dies, then he comes back.

mark
  • allgoodpeople
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 379
  • Loc: here

Post 3+ Months Ago

ok, that's true. guilty as charged :twisted: :lol:
  • PluTunium
  • Professor
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 812
  • Loc: Touring the USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

Hey, lets NOT get off-topic again!

The movie.
I want to go see this movie very badly. I am just waiting for the perfect time. Everyone I know liked it. One of my christian friends totally gave his entire life to jesus after watching this movie. I think he's pretty amazing for doing that.
  • AnthonyF
  • Novice
  • Novice
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 28

Post 3+ Months Ago

Plautunium - He gave his entire life already?

Its only been out a week.
  • PluTunium
  • Professor
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 812
  • Loc: Touring the USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

He was already a solid christian.. but now it's all about jesus for him. nothing else.
  • IH8Purple
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1214
  • Loc: Somewhere on Google Earth

Post 3+ Months Ago

I became more religous after the movie came out, just look at my sig. I also got a new, more religous, theory on snow removel: "what God gives God will take away, untill then drive over it" and if that is what the movie jsut coming out makes me do I can't imagine what seeing it will do
  • Troubadour
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 137
  • Loc: Melbourne, Australia

Post 3+ Months Ago

IH8Purple wrote:
What is it rated?


15+ in Australia.
Though most who have seen it (the Public in Oz) reckon it should be 18+
  • suzie
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1154
  • Loc: England

Post 3+ Months Ago

grinch2171,
Quote:
Funny how this started off as a conversation about the movie and turned into a debate about grammar.
I thought that too, just wanted to see how far this would go lololol i fully expected this topic to suddenly become "closed" :D

*On topic* i will watch the movie--on DVD i hope..yea i know it will be a long wait lol
:D
suzie.

Post Information

  • Total Posts in this topic: 50 posts
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests
  • You cannot post new topics in this forum
  • You cannot reply to topics in this forum
  • You cannot edit your posts in this forum
  • You cannot delete your posts in this forum
  • You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
 

© 1998-2016. Ozzu® is a registered trademark of Unmelted, LLC.