Glisten Effect
Editorial Reviews
Scoreboard Forum
Viewer Ratings
     1. Shang-Chi: Legend/Ten Rings
    2. Free Guy
   3. The Suicide Squad
  4. The Green Knight
 5. Jungle Cruise
6. Black Widow
         1. Alice in Wonderland
        2. Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker
       3. LOTR: Fellowship of the Ring
      4. Solo: A Star Wars Story
     5. Justice League
    6. Gladiator
   7. Harry Potter: Sorcerer's Stone
  8. Spider-Man
 9. How to Train Your Dragon
10. Alice Through the Looking Glass
Home Page
Archives:   2000-2006 | 2006-2015 | 2015-2021
Menu Options ▼

Edit | Delete
Re: It's Magic
• Posted by: Man
• Date: Thursday, June 1, 2006, at 4:16 a.m.
• IP Address:
• In Response to: It's Magic (Ashi-taka469)

For god's sake. "Whisks its audience away etc" just means its an interesting story that peole enjoy reading (or at least I enjoy reading it. From the look of another post of yours, you merely "didn't consider it anything special as a piece of literature", instead of having a problem with the actual magic in it. If you don't like them, that's your opinion).

Another thing, despite your "proof" that love is not simply a huge sequence of extremely complex chemical reactions (which it essentially is, no matter what we think it is), there is no way you can proove this pastor guy's post is anything other than junk. Whatever you say, Harry Potter is not affecting anyone or turning them into satanists. I think HP is being "filtered through blind faith" by this pastor, because what he says sure aint happening. (Another thing: you said people "know for a fact" that what science describes love as is not the whole story. This is obivously incorrect; No tests can prove some magical thing called love exists and is not merely an illusion created by chemicals and neurons in the brain. People simply are convinced it exists. It's in our nature. This "fact" that it exists is just part of the illusion our unconscious brain regions are creating for us. Few peole like it, but that's the fact. Theory and observation can explain everything possible in the universe, as they define what is possible in the universe. Mystical powers and "indescribable" sensations like love are illusions. Oh and by the way, ta\hat reminds me: The so-called indescribable areas of the heart and mind have a description: They are merely the more primitive, animalistic, inner reaches of the brain that are responsible for emotions, desires and instincts. Oddly enough, they are also the areas responsible for love etc).

Part two: however influential the bible is, it is still comprised of what appears to be "traditioanal fictional stories". There is absolutely no way Jesus walked on water. Perhaps some of the stories are simply distorted versions of actual events (eg the five thousand people; maybe jesus simply happened to have a lot of food and his generosity became legendary, eventually being twisted into the obviously fake story we have today), but they have essentially become what has amounted to fiction (although, unlike HP, the bible actually claims to be factually correct). You have also forgotten that the bible was written and had its huge effects on western civilisation at a time very different to urs; back then people actually believed in magic etc and were more likely to swallow things we would never consider today. The main example: the bible. (Another thing: the bible does seem to be written, at least in part, to justify many of our civilisations acts thtat we would definitely not support today, eg leviticus saying slavery is all rgiht). Can you "enlighten" us to show the bible is real? I seriously doubt it.

Essentially, you are fighting against someone who is in the right. Instead of finding little technicalities to destroy arguments, try refuting this insane pastor. And another thing, grow up.

> Gee, I must have some serious introspection then, because for some reason,
> these stories fail to wisk me away on that magical mystery tour your
> raving about. As for the rest of your post, if rants on the occult make
> you sick, you must get a lot of notes from the doctor, because that seems
> a little bit sensitive. But that aspect of you post is unimportant. It's
> the other parts that interest me more.

> Must everything be filtered through blind faith you ask? Well, yes and no.
> Christians are intelligent human beings (believe it or not :o). We do have
> the ability to rationalize or reasons for doing certain things. Yet within
> the realm of faith, as with everything, there are certain things that
> cannot be proven with theory and observation. One of my favorite movie
> quotes offers a real good illustration of this. It's the scene in
> "Contact" where Ellie and Palmer are basically challenging each
> others beliefs.
Palmer:"Did you love your father?"
Palmer:"Your Dad. Did you love
> him?"
Ellie:"Yes, very much."
> it."
Now let me ask you, how would one go about proving such a
> thing by use of the scientific method? You may try, in which case you
> would ultimately come to the conclusion that this love could not possibly
> exist and is merely a mental illusion created by the subject to prevent
> herself from slipping into feelings of self doubt and thusly depression.
> Still, after reaching such a conclusion, try convincing the subject that
> it is true, try convincing anyone that their love for another is merely an
> illusional state of mind. In the end you will fail, simply because the
> people would somewhere in some indescribable area of their heart and mind
> know for a fact that what you presented is not the whole story, that some
> all important element is missing, something that all the theory and
> observation in the world could not identify and explain, and the only way
> it can be seen is through that blind faith you so despise.

> Immediately proceeding this you make the claim that the Bible is nothing
> but a series of fictional stories in of its self. Quite a bold claim,
> considering it is probably the most influential book in history on the
> path of western civilization. Yet despite the bold nature of your comment,
> you fail to enlighten us as to your reasoning for such a claim. It's
> almost as if you wish us to accept it "on faith." In this case,
> blind faith is not an acceptable answer to such a claim, given that there
> are documents that could be used to illustrate either parallels or
> contradictions in literature of the time, there is archeological evidence
> that could be searched for and that has been found, example the ashes of
> James brother of Jesus just recently recovered. So, you essentially could
> make scientific judgements in either direction regarding the Bible. Yet
> regardless, that fact seemed to pass you up.

Comments in this Thread:     Expand >>

Copyright © 1998-2021, Filmtracks Publications. All rights reserved.
The reviews and other textual content contained on the site may not be published, broadcast,
rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Christian Clemmensen at Filmtracks Publications. Scoreboard created 7/24/98 and last updated 4/25/15.