Anon Ymous wrote:

"Michael Cecil (28SW2)" <mjtc@earthlink.net> wrote in message

Jean Guernon wrote:

Michael Cecil (28SW2) a écrit:

http://www.deadseanaghammadiresearch.com/Vatican.htm

Michael Cecil

Once I see it I'll know for sure much better of course, but

it goes to show that whoever says whatever, one should always wait

seeing something to make a comment over it.

Stop thinking about Christian theology for just *five* minutes, Jean.

Start thinking about it for five minutes, Michael, and maybe you'll
have more of a clue why Christians believe what they do.

I know precisely why Christians believe what they do.

It is pleasurable to think that 'God' 'Himself' would willingly go
through excruciating suffering to save their sorry 'soul' from 'hell'.

This makes them feel really special. And all they have to do to get into
'heaven' is to believe that they are so special. This makes them feel
good about themselves. And this 'good feeling' they are certainly not
willing to sacrifice for something as useless as the Truth.

If you go to see this movie, you will be paying money in order to be
*pleasured* by watching a graphic and realisitic representation of
a man being tortured to death.

Not entirely true.

Yes, entirely true.

To the Christian mind, they will witness a god
willingly submitting himself to torture and death for the sake of
others.

You merely demonstrate the point that I am making.

They are using Christian doctrine to filter the reality of what is
being depicted, which is human torture.

Even if I were a Christian, I would *not* want to see this.

If I were a Christian, it would probably make me feel horrible just
to 'know' that I had been 'responsible' for this suffering.

Is this not the way a small child of 5 might perceive this?

A child of 5 would not be expected to take *pleasure* in watching such
a depiction of horrendous suffering. A person would have to be an
*adult* Christian to take *pleasure* in this. True or false?

And didn't Jesus say: "Unless you become like little children, you
will not enter the kingdom of heaven"?

In other words, I would argue that you are 'far from heaven' if you
are looking at this movie through the eyes of an adult Christian.

Children are unsophisticated. They are not filled with the doctrines
of Christian theology by which such horror is made 'acceptable'
because this was done for their 'redemption'. A child who loved
Jesus because of what he had been told might very well prefer
*not* to be 'redeemed' than to have someone he loves suffer so
much.

(By the way, what is the *youngest* age a Christian child should be
allowed to see this movie? I think this will *really* demonstrate the
depth of *perversity* of Christianity--when you see Christian parents
taking their 4 and 5 year old little boys and girls to see such a
depiction of brutality; and then trying to convince them that this was
a *good* thing.)

And here you demonstrate the incredible weakness of your
approach to all things religious. You are completely incapable of
understanding

I understand the deep structure of Christian belief.

You are distracted by the surface structure.

or respecting any belief system other than the one
you've constructed.

I would have a *lot* more respect for Christians if they would plainly
state that the Teaching of Jesus is much too difficult for them, and
so they have chosen to follow instead the teaching of Paul. At least
they would be honest. As it is now, they are both dishonest and wrong
at the same time.

Why is it not *psychopathic* to watch Jesus being tortured to death--
it is, in 'fact', a *religious* experience--but it would readily be
recognized as psychopathic were it *any* other human being or maybe
even *animal* on the face of the earth?

Again, in order to see the Passion this way, you have to ignore (or
dismiss) a lot of Christian beliefs.

BINGO.

And I would gladly dismiss ANY belief that attempted to convince me
that torturing a human being to death is a GOOD idea--I don't care
if the idea was Jewish, Christian or Muslim.

I am looking at this movie as a child of 5 years old might look at
it. But it is clear that you do not remember what this is like.

I am not looking at it through the veil of Christian theology--a veil
that protects from the reality of what is being depicted.

From the Christian perspective,
the Passion was a triumph of will.

Sure. It takes an incredible effort of will to hold that doctrine in
one's mind while watching the brutality splattered on the screen.

I think it will be a real *embarrassment* that millions of Christians
will choose to see this movie. It will merely demonstrate their ability
to hold to doctrine as a protection against reality--precisely the same
mechanism that allows a person to *commit* an outrageous act of viol-
ence; for example, a Muslim suicide bomber.

You can't see the psychological parallels here, which is not surprising.

As to "any other human being"
intentionally going through suffering for the good of others, there
are numerous examples that have been made into movies.

Not precisely.

Other people have suffered for causes that can be explained in terms
of a doctrine or a theory for which they were being persecuted. The
suffering they experienced was merely secondary to the fact that they
were suffering for having taken a particular position.

It is only with Jesus that the suffering experienced is the entire
*purpose*. According to Christian theology, Jesus was not tortured
for any other reason than that that torture is redeeming. They have
utterly eliminated any *doctrinal* consideration of that suffering
because Christian theology would collapse were that to be considered.

In any case, who wants to see a depiction of human torture?

This is the question.

Who takes *pleasure* in a depiction of human torture?

Ghandi and his
followers, for instance, willingly suffered incredible cruelty only to
finally overcome the guys with the guns.

The *purpose* of Gandhi and his followers was NOT the suffering itself.
What they suffered was for the purpose of accomplishing another goal.
It is only with Jesus that the purpose itself is the suffering because
this suffering is said to be 'required' to achieve redemption.

You can only reduce it to
*psychopathic* by dismissing all positive aspects of Christianity.

There is a lot positive about Christianity.

Watching a person being tortured to death is not one of them; taking
pleasure in seeing *any* human being suffer is not one of them.

By holding on to an image or illusion which *insulates* them from the
reality of what they are doing.

In your opinion, it's an illusion.

Nonononononono.

I am not saying it is *false*. That is another argument.

What I am saying is that it is an illusion which makes the commission
of acts of violence even possible.

A Muslim suicide bomber must hold very strongly to the belief that the
people he kills are "infidels". I may or may not even agree with him in
this regard. But, it is by holding to that illusion that what he is
doing is perceived as not being so horrific. Even if it is a reality
that the people he kills are 'infidels', it is an illusion because it
is making him more dehumanized and dehumanizing.

You arent capable of proving your
mindset any more than the most dedicated Catholic or the most certain
atheist.

What I am saying is that anyone who holds to a religious belief which
insulates him from the reality of human suffering is using that belief
for what it was not intended. Ultimately, the purpose of religious
belief
is to open oneself to the humanity of others. Any religious belief--that
is, illusion--which makes human suffering 'acceptable' or glorifies that
human suffering is dehumanizing.

If you hold very firmly onto the image that "the Jews" are evil

killers, you can protect yourself from any feelings of guil(t)e that

might normally have otherwise if you were to kill them; and the same
goes for Muslims to Christo-fascists and Christians to the Muslim
fascists.

The Christian celebration of the Passion

What a *monstrous* and *perverse* verbal construct.

Do you have ANY idea what you are saying?

Of course not.

You have become dehumanized by the doctrines you hold.

Even if I were a Christian, I would not say that the suffering of Jesus
should be *celebrated*. Such a comment is simply *grotesque*.

Commemorate, yes; like the attack on Pearl Harbor is commem-
morated or 9-11 is commemorated. But not *celebrated*.

has N O T H I N G to do with
copping out by suggesting that the Jews are evil.

What you are saying is that the 1500+ years of Christian anti-Semitism
in Europe *did not happen*.

You have some theory that the doctrines of Christianity should *not*
lead to violence against "the Jews". And, with that theory, you wave
your magic wand to simply *wipe out* hundreds of years of Christian
anti-Semitism resulting in the Holocaust, which you also wipe out.

Mutatis mutandi, whatever it takes to insulate yourself from the
reality of European history.

What I write results from *looking* at the reality of European history
and then explaining the doctrinal reasons which *resulted* in Christian
violence against the Jews. But you start by trying to insulate your-
self from the reality that I am attempting to explain.

The image you miss
is the image that the person causing the suffering has the "correct"
version of reality.

Precisely.

It is for this reason that I conclude that the Muslim suicide bombers
are
wrong. A person that causes the suffering is *not* 'correct'.

It's the certainty of religion which causes
fanaticism.

Precisely my point; and precisely what you are demonstrating.

It has nothing to do with seeing the Jews as evil "christ
killers."

In your 'never never land', no Jew was *ever* been slaughtered or tor-
tured by a Christian. Why? Because your theory tells you that it just
should *not* have happened. And because it should not have happened, it
*could* not have happened. Because this is the belief that gives you
pleasure. It insulates you from the reality of Christian theology.

Your suggestion again comes from your chauvinism to your
own philosphical construction of warfare between the three major
religions. You try to impose that perception even when it isnt there.
You have the same weakness as those you indict for exactly the same
reason! You are so sure of your correctness that others must be
wrong/evil/insane.

This is not even occurring at that level.

It is at a much more basic level--the level at which belief prevents
a person from actually seeing what is going on.

I will say it again:

No Christian who sees this movie will actually see a man being tortured
to death. Too many Christian beliefs will interfere with that perception
in order to change it into a validation of his or her beliefs.

And I would argue that this is a public mental health catastrophe.

How can it possibly be *good* for society to become exponenentially
*more* insensitive to violence committed against other human beings?

It has almost exactly the opposite effect.

Yeah. Sure.

And after the 'Passion plays' of medieval Europe, there were widespread
*love* fests between Jews and Christians. And Pope Paul III did *not*
have to cancel one of these passion plays because of the danger that
the Christians would go on an orgy of violence and blood-letting in the
Jewish community.

None of these things *ever* happened, because this is what your theory
demands of history.

Christian theology has done nothing other than bring heaven on earth for
the Jews. And, if they can't see that, well, they must be *stiff-necked*
or something.

In associating with the
Christ, society becomes more long-suffering, more able to
forgive--stronger.

Sure.

*That's* what the Christians said to the Jews during the pogroms:
"We *forgive* you for causing so much suffering to Jesus..."

As they proceeded to rape the daughters and murder the fathers.

If Christ could willingly suffer through the
Passion, what should members of society be able to suffer (vile
attacks on a NG, eh Tony)? Christ's message was an incredibly
powerful one

The message of Jesus was a Teaching of the Truth about the 'resur-
rection'.

How 'powerful' that message is is a matter of some dispute, inasmuch
as the media will not even allow it to be publicized 2000 years later.

--which is why many Buddhists see him as an enlightened
being.

Fine.

But I'm not talking about Jesus. I am talking about the psychological
perversity of taking *pleasure* out of watching a man being tortured
to death.

In fact, I'd argue that his example has a lot better chance of
saving someone than some mystical blood-for-blood sacrifice or ancient
alchemical archetype (that's for you, Gary). Whether or not
Christianity is real, whether or not Christ ever existed, the Passion
contains incredible beauty--the beauty of compassion.

Try to convince a 5 year old little boy of this, nitwit.

You have substituted Darkness for Light, vinegar for the Water of
Truth. You have turned the world upside down because such is
absolutely *necessary* in order for you to 'get into heaven'.

Its beauty is
its most powerful truth.

Human torture = beauty.

Certainly an incredible religion you have there.

So incredible that opposing viewpoints *must* be prevented from
being expressed in the media.

I suppose you are one of those who will go into a veritable religious
ECSTASY by watching a movie about Jesus being tortured to death.

Michael Cecil

I understand Michael.... You are extremely jealous that Yeshua, Our
Redeemer lives...and Muhammed is worm food. Only fools chase dead men....

"Michael Cecil (28SW2)" <mjtc@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3FDB11AC.9C0A3087@earthlink.net...

"Michael Cecil (28SW2)" wrote:

Jean Guernon wrote:

Michael Cecil (28SW2) a écrit:

http://www.deadseanaghammadiresearch.com/Vatican.htm

Michael Cecil

Once I see it I'll know for sure much better of course, but obviously,
it goes to show that whoever says whatever, one should always wait

until

seeing something to make a comment over it.

Stop thinking about Christian theology for just *five* minutes, Jean.

If you go to see this movie, you will be paying money in order to be
*pleasured* by watching a graphic and realisitic representation of
a man being tortured to death.

Any tears that will be cried at this movie will be, fundamentally, tears

of

*pleasure*. Can you understand this?

Does that not strike you as being in any way perverse, in any way
psychopathic?

What if your father or mother or your wife were tortured to death;
would you want to pay to see a graphic representation of this?

Periodically, young women in the United States are kidnapped,
brutalized and murdered by sexual psychopaths.

But, if a movie studio announced that they wanted to make a movie
which very realistically presents a graphic depiction of what one of
those women experienced; there would, hopefully, be a *firestorm*
of protest by women's organizations in the United States.

Why should it be any *different* because the person being tortured
to death is Jesus?

Why is it not *psychopathic* to watch Jesus being tortured to death--
it is, in 'fact', a *religious* experience--but it would readily be
recognized as psychopathic were it *any* other human being or maybe
even *animal* on the face of the earth?

Is that not at all troubling to you?

Does it not bother you in the least that such a movie may open
the flood gates for the production of other movies which present
much more graphic representations of human torture and death?
movies about how Saddam Hussein tortured people to death?
or movies about war?

Forget about anti-Semitism for just *five* minutes.

I would argue that this movie is inflaming *precisely* that psych-
ological mechanism which underlies anti-Semitic violence.

Why have the Jewish psychiatrists not jumped into this argument?

How is it possible for people to commit horrendous acts of viciousness
and violence against other people?

By holding on to an image or illusion which *insulates* them from the
reality of what they are doing.

If you hold very firmly onto the image that "the Jews" are evil Christ-
killers, you can protect yourself from any feelings of guile

Guilt is what I meant to say.

that you
might normally have otherwise if you were to kill them; and the same
goes for Muslims to Christo-fascists and Christians to the Muslim
fascists.

I would argue that the Christians going to see this movie are *not*
really seeing the movie at all. They are *insulated* from seeing a
person being tortured to death. They are *protected* from this reality
by looking through the veil of illusion of Christian theology.

And I would argue that this is a public mental health catastrophe.

How can it possibly be *good* for society to become exponenentially
*more* insensitive to violence committed against other human beings?

Unfortunately, this whole problem has been reduced to merely a
problem of anti-Semitism, when the real issue is how the illusions
of religion can result in psychopathic violence--on the part of Jews,
Christians or Muslims.

What was the reaction of the Jew who fully perceived the evil of
what he had done in betraying Jesus--that is, Judas?

He *killed* himself.

And, in this, I would argue that he is more sensitive than *any*
Christian which goes to see "The Passion of the Christ".

Michael Cecil

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

I understand Michael.... You are extremely jealous that Yeshua, Our
Redeemer lives...and Muhammed is worm food. Only fools chase dead men....


"Michael Cecil (28SW2)" <mjtc@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3FDB11AC.9C0A3087@earthlink.net...

"Michael Cecil (28SW2)" wrote:

Jean Guernon wrote:

Michael Cecil (28SW2) a écrit:

http://www.deadseanaghammadiresearch.com/Vatican.htm

Michael Cecil

Once I see it I'll know for sure much better of course, but

it goes to show that whoever says whatever, one should always wait

until

seeing something to make a comment over it.

Stop thinking about Christian theology for just *five* minutes, Jean.

If you go to see this movie, you will be paying money in order to be
*pleasured* by watching a graphic and realisitic representation of
a man being tortured to death.

Any tears that will be cried at this movie will be, fundamentally, tears

of

*pleasure*. Can you understand this?

Does that not strike you as being in any way perverse, in any way
psychopathic?

What if your father or mother or your wife were tortured to death;
would you want to pay to see a graphic representation of this?

Periodically, young women in the United States are kidnapped,
brutalized and murdered by sexual psychopaths.

But, if a movie studio announced that they wanted to make a movie
which very realistically presents a graphic depiction of what one of
those women experienced; there would, hopefully, be a *firestorm*
of protest by women's organizations in the United States.

Why should it be any *different* because the person being tortured
to death is Jesus?

Why is it not *psychopathic* to watch Jesus being tortured to death--
it is, in 'fact', a *religious* experience--but it would readily be
recognized as psychopathic were it *any* other human being or maybe
even *animal* on the face of the earth?

Is that not at all troubling to you?

Does it not bother you in the least that such a movie may open
the flood gates for the production of other movies which present
much more graphic representations of human torture and death?
movies about how Saddam Hussein tortured people to death?
or movies about war?

Forget about anti-Semitism for just *five* minutes.

I would argue that this movie is inflaming *precisely* that psych-
ological mechanism which underlies anti-Semitic violence.

Why have the Jewish psychiatrists not jumped into this argument?

How is it possible for people to commit horrendous acts of viciousness
and violence against other people?

By holding on to an image or illusion which *insulates* them from the
reality of what they are doing.

If you hold very firmly onto the image that "the Jews" are evil

killers, you can protect yourself from any feelings of guile

Guilt is what I meant to say.

that you
might normally have otherwise if you were to kill them; and the same
goes for Muslims to Christo-fascists and Christians to the Muslim
fascists.

I would argue that the Christians going to see this movie are *not*
really seeing the movie at all. They are *insulated* from seeing a
person being tortured to death. They are *protected* from this reality
by looking through the veil of illusion of Christian theology.

And I would argue that this is a public mental health catastrophe.

How can it possibly be *good* for society to become exponenentially
*more* insensitive to violence committed against other human beings?

Unfortunately, this whole problem has been reduced to merely a
problem of anti-Semitism, when the real issue is how the illusions
of religion can result in psychopathic violence--on the part of Jews,
Christians or Muslims.

What was the reaction of the Jew who fully perceived the evil of
what he had done in betraying Jesus--that is, Judas?

He *killed* himself.

And, in this, I would argue that he is more sensitive than *any*
Christian which goes to see "The Passion of the Christ".

Michael Cecil

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

I understand Michael.... You are extremely jealous that Yeshua, Our
Redeemer lives...

and Muhammed is worm food.

Only fools chase dead men....