Jump to content

johnmark

Member
  • Content Count

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About johnmark

  • Rank
    <banned>

Previous Fields

  • Occupation
    self
  • Favorite movies
    citizan kane wizard of oz casablanca gunga din
  • Favorite music
    bach
  1. Yeah, I'm a jerk. So what? Jesus and Paul were jerks, too. Lots of Christian sissies around trying to pretend they're harmonious and sweet souled while they knife others in the back. If you can't handle being judged or moralized at, don't be Christians. Well, the fact is not many of you are. If you can't handle some rough and tumble in argument, don't offer dumb, indefensible opinions. This is a public forum, not a circle jerk. Iron sharpens iron. What I've mostly met here is tin foil and a bunch of crybabies who can't read or reason. SDG, yeah I guess you've got a lot of powerhouse arguments to knock the pope off his pedestal, and Jesus, and Paul, and Proverbs, and Jeremiah. These arguments aren't mine. They are the Church's. If you don't like them, then you don't really like the Church. Guess what? The cross is an offense, and that's what you're hating. The fact that some of you call yourself Christian doesn't change the fact that you don't want to be or you're merely in it for a good, warm and fuzzy feeling. My mother used to say you catch more flies with honey instead of vinegar. She was wrong. Love is not what moves most people. It is fear and guilt which makes people move. That's why the Bible says the beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord. Jesus came out of the wilderness insulting everyone he could find. What did he say? He cried out, Repent! He didn't say, Come over here so I can kiss you. As I said before, too many of the folks here have no idea what steaming sacks of excrement they are compared to the holiness of God. I'm a jerk? You've no idea just how much I've been, may still be, and how sick your own rotten heart is. "Peter, follow me." "Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man, a bag of degenerate scum, a twisted, selfish pig of a fool, the dirtiest, most impure sack of vile dust not worthy of standing a foot near you." If you've never met the risen Lord, face to face, you have no clue. Maybe that's what made Jesus (who saw the Father face to face) and Paul such jerks. They actually knew who they were talking about.
  2. I saw A Clockwork Orange when it first came out and thought it was simply the greatest thing. That was when I was a pagan. The writer, Burgess, wanted to create this sense of frisson where you have a loathsome but also loveable rogue who gets what
  3. 23:27Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. 28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness. 33"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?
  4. How about you explain the difference the chronicling of what is immoral with immoral depictions of it? Song of Solomon is your idea of porn? Have at it then. Give me the verse which you find so mightily provocative and throbbing in erotic imagery. Her breasts are like twin roebucks? Yeah, try to even explain the image before you get around to how it's as good as Viagra. Obviously, you're the one who has a problem with Paul, Proverbs, Jesus, the Prophets, the Writings and so forth. If you can't handle being a Christian, why bother? It comes with obligations. Peter has no intention to be the spiritual head of his household and exercise any authority over wife and children. Isn't that special. They are free agents. Clearly we have people here who cannot call evil evil but make excuses to call it good. I guess there are no moral standards in the Church. Y'all can just make them up as you go along. Now let's see, the Jews held nudity and depictions of nudity in statues and in the Greek Gynasiums to be sinful. Jesus was a Jew who called on his followers to be more scrupulous than even the Pharisees (see Matt Sermon on the Mount), so I guess, yeah, that means that if you think depictions of nudity and actions of sex justified unter certain circumstances for art's sake (because we know art is so much more important than God) are useful, then have at it. You call yourselves Christians, but what are you? Not any kind of Christian I have ever heard a great pastor, saint, or preacher agree with. C'mon you smart alecks. Give me chapter and verse, show me where the great Churchmen support your relativistic opinions. Where are your justifications and support beyond your own cheap sophistry? I don't care that many of you like and enjoy sex and nudity in films. I object to the fact that you rationalize it and think you are Christian in doing so. You're cutting your conscience to suit your clothes, the fashion. That's intellectually cowardly. If it's rude of me to say so forcefully, tough. The Bible is tough, and God is even tougher. If you aren't already aware of what miserable worms and steaming bags of scum you are in relation to the holiness of God, get a clue. A little fear of the Lord might do some of you some good.
  5. Yeah, I guess expecting Christians to maintain even a pretense of basic Christian morality in their lives or hearts is a damnable thing. To hell with St. Paul. What did he know? He never got to see pagans make movies. You're right, Peter, Shakespeare's stage directions are full of - And now Romeo will ravage Juliet in the nude on stage for our delectable enjoyment. That's your riposte? You've seen Shakespeare abused and done with nudity!? And that was Shakespeare's doing somehow? He lent his work to that? He sent instructions down from eternity to that express purpose? Yes, I blame men for exploiting women more than the women themselves. Who has more power in the situation? And who are more eager to please and exhibit? But a whore's a whore any way you look at it when you pay people to expose themselves and perform sex acts, simulated or real. How there can be any justification for this among supposed Christians is disgusting. Show me chapter and verse where Jesus or Paul rationalize immorality in the way some of you do? I guess reminding Christians to be moral is lobbing a grenade in their midst. Oh the shock and horror of it. Yeah, Peter, go ahead and pimp your wife and daughter out for the sake of art. I'll bet Jesus will righteously applaud you for it. Excuse me for thinking you actually might have some standard of decency regarding your own females. That's some pretty squishy Gnosticism you've got, but don't call it Christianity if you please. Go ahead and find me a serious pastor or saint who preaches your brand of self-indulgence.
  6. Oh, for God's sake, Alan, when does the use of nudity and the simulation of sex ever serve the purpose of God in the conveyance of truth about sinful people doing sinful things? Women were asked to debase themselves before cameras and a crew and then an audience for the sake of an acting part and told to exhibit their bodies and human sexuality for a few dollars because some idiot director thought it all for the sake of art. My daughter is an actress and I expect she will never consent to being a whore for art. Paying people to expose themselves for soft porn moments is what? - pandering for the purpose of prostitution. Why are these actresses any different than porn actresses who are paid to expose themselves and simpulate sex? How are these male directors any different than Panders? If Shakespeare can get by without nudity and sex acts, then by God so can Spielberg and anyone else. Frankly, I say damn them and anybody else who thinks doing evil for art's sake serves God. What kind of a Christian makes excuses for this kind of thing? Any artist worth his salt knows how to tell the truth about life in any number of alternate ways. Art gives no one license to use women and prey on their natural desire to exhibit their beauty, or to tempt them to sin with money and the allure of more and better work. If it's so acceptable, is it what you would want your wife or daughter to do? If not, then quit with the sophistry that some art is worth it.
  7. johnmark

    The Experience Of Film

    I, too, dislike Spielberg to a very high degree and tore him a new one over Munich not too long ago. I have a new piece of criticism up at New English Review that compares and contrasts Gunga Din vs. Indiana Jones. It's an entertaining piece that demonstrates the difference between sincerity and artificiality in the adventure genre. Spielberg continually demonstrates that he is great at staging action sequences, but hopelessly inadequate at human experience. He is cheap, sentimental, cliche ridden, and shallow. He's no better than Kevin Costner in his Schindler's List et al because like Costner he will always go for the lump in the throat than any serious encounter with how tragic and senseless life is without faith.
  8. Monsieur Plankton, Many people forget a few things about Schindler
  9. johnmark

    Ebert Watch

    I rarely agree with Ebert, but I like him. I find many of his evaluations of movies to be shallow; and his liberalism full of cant and delusion, but when I read his reviews (as opposed to watching his show), I am frequently astonished by how well he writes, the telling phrase, the quick but encompassing description of situations and nuances. He's a lucky man to have become so well known for what he does, but he is really very good at it delivering his opinion in an interesting and persuasive manner. It's hard to imagine any film critic ever being as popular as Ebert once he goes. In terms of substance, I think Ebert is thin, but he's very long; and that makes up for a lot.
  10. Mr. Smedberg, Do I bite my thumb at Mr. O's thoughts on censoship? Yes sir, I do bite my thumb.
  11. Back to censorship. Mr. Overstreet states in his article that:
  12. I believe my source was Michael Medved. But the article I found criticizes Medved's facts: The author challenges Medved and his source thus: I guess, Medved may well be wrong, and thus, me too in citing the statistic. This site on events in every year in the 60's Media History states that: 1968: U.S. movie attendance drops to 20 million tickets weekly (10% of population). Medved is probably wrong about his stat if you go by the article I cite, but it has become ubiquitously quoted for some time now in many journals. The article I quote above doesn't actually disprove Medved, but significantly challenges it. The author doesn't offer better stats on attendance, but quotes income from apparent ticket sales which may be questionable in their own way regarding accuracy. If Reel Facts was wrong about one stat, it might be wrong about the other in which case we are in the dark. I am uncertain. Clearly movie attendance plunged significantly over a few years in the 60's and never recovered and has been going down since. But 50% in a year? Unlikely. I therefore stand corrected. Still, the trend at the time was not minor but great with the disappearance of the MPC and the institution of the ratings system. The drop from 1957's 45 million to 20 million by 1968 was probably precipitous, but over a period of, perhaps, four years. Not one.
  13. Peter, No, I am citing an article I believe I read at the Libertas blog. Movie attendance dropped as you cite during the time of the introduction of TV, but it then leveled off and remained relatively stable until 1967 when it dropped in half within a year. I will try and find a link to that stat if I can. Otherwise, it is indeed inadmissable in court, so to speak.
  14. I didn't see many foreign films before the late 60's. I believe the studios dropped the MPC standards in 1967. Movie attendance dropped by 50% the next year and left us with the movie demographic which now rules - the 14-35 year old people. When Hollywood made movies family and religious unfriendly, the moral and artistic harm became incalculable. The Guardian tosses in one F word towards the end of an otherwise clean movie. Why? To earn a PG-13 rating. Where's the harm in editing out of a DVD what had been so gratuitously included? The idea that ClearPlay is detrimental to artists is simply absurd. Artists in many of these cases are what's detrimental to humanity. Calling yourself an artist doesn't give anyone a special license for propagating obscenity and for corrupting the morals of minors. Frankly, artists are the last people anyone should allow to determine what art is, what it's for, and what it is free to say or do. Artists are generally the most childish, narcissistic, egotistical, immature, nihilistic and hedonistic bunch of souls on the planet at any given moment. Even the best artists are suspect. Michaelangelo confessed in old age that the God he had worshipped nearly all his adult life was Art, not the Trinity, and that he, in essence, had wasted his life or lost it for no good. Somehow censorship has gotten a bad name when censorship is what everyone does and is generally a good thing.
  15. I often watch movies with my 21 year old daughter. We both prefer that the movies do not embarrass us because we are mixed company in which some things ought to be and used to be restricted. I always took Proverbs to heart where it says
×
×
  • Create New...