 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > THE MATRIX | Forum Quick Jump
|
|  One Love Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003 Total Posts : 13888 | Posted 5/15/2003 5:35 AM (GMT -6) |   | Christian:
quote: My family and I will pass on the matrix. We desire to live pure lives and find more pleasure involved in things that stimulate us to pure thinking rather than bring pleasure to our debased man. We crucified that man with Christ.
Heh. More power to ya. How about you just pray for old impure, licentious people like me who would so increase his debased man's stockhold of mental perversion. Bad Meph. Bad. [smacks his own hand]
Going to get the ticket now. Hehe. 
The Ravenously Debased  | | Back to Top | | |
 |  BBBCanada Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001 Total Posts : 2763 | Posted 5/15/2003 6:48 AM (GMT -6) |   | First, the person who was calling your position puritannical was Miss E, otherwise known as Empiress and I think she makes some good points. Christians draw upon Victorian sentiments of romantic love, when, for example, they write "Christian romance novels." Have you ever walked into your local Christian bookstore and seen some of these books? Just check out the front cover. It is a love that is pure but PASSIONLESS and almost sexless! I mean there is no "loins that throb," and no "breasts that heave." While some secular romance novels make light of sexuality by detaching it from deeply committed relationships and higlighting fleeting encounters, these Christian romance novels distort and cheapen life when they deny the force of sexual passion and desire. There are ways in which to put the erotic in books and film without "enticing one to sin", as in pornography. There's a huge difference. And I don't mean "Show her bathing, but only show her bare shoulders/ back to get the point across." Or as they use to do on the Walton's (or was that Little Outhouse on the Praire as Redd Foxx [I miss that guy] said on Sanford and Son?) when Ma and Pa went and had sex, they walked into the bedroom and closed the door. HA! Cute! But talk about taking the "twang" out of the lemon. For sure some the explicitness in film will "entice" you, but for some of us, it does diddly. And there are films that just concentrate on the physical so much so that no matter how mature of a Christian you are you need to know when to walk. Know what I mean?
Secondly, I am not questioning the right in which direction you want to take this thread. But I do have a right question your putting words in my post. It wasn't THAT big of a deal, but please, don't do it again. If you want to quote somebody, go back through the thread and see who EXACTLY you are quoting.
Third, again, I will restate my position. I empathsize with where you are coming from concerning the portrayal of women in popular art. Basically everyone has to be a Barbie doll, i.e. American Idol, Baywatch. There is some legitimacy to your concern. But my fear is when, as I said above, we judge works of art according to the confessional or moral content alone. Believe me, Christians have come far in the last twenty or so years. There was a time when only that which spoke of religious themes, or JPM's (Jesus's per minute) was worthy of being viewed, listened to, or wrote, painted about. So the fact that you (and many "cultural Christians") are willing to watch certain t.v. shows, listen to music, etc, that speak about things other than the religious, (also created by NON-CHRISTIANS) shows that we are more mature than where we were (by yesterdays and fundamentalistic standards, you would be very WORLDLY), yet we have a way to go.
Fourth, even more disturbing than just the "Barbie doll" portrayal is American sentiments that are far more subtle nature. If we judge works of art by moral criticism alone, we tend to ignore artistic features, formal characteristics, the relation of style to content and the construction of meaning. For example there are works of art that will have absolutely no foul language, total absence of sexual immorality, lack of nudity but are very post modernistic in their outlook which most Christians would condemn as moral relativism. Did you know that some of the worst films in America were John Wayne films? Yet these are films that most Christians would let their ten year old watch.
All I'm asking is that you go deeper than even what you have done here on this thread. And the ONLY way you can do that is by actively engaging the culture discerning as you go. The more you discern, the less the blindly you walk.
Now, on to "tickets.com" for "The Matrix."
P.S. Meph Man, my son and I have been reading Calvin and Hobbes together. One comic has Calvin blowing his nose, looking at his hanky and say, "Hey! No brains!" 
Brandon "Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs www.darwinhobbs.com | | Back to Top | | |
 |  honorman Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 1137 | Posted 5/15/2003 7:19 AM (GMT -6) |   | Christian: more power to ya. If it bothers you, you shouldn't do it. As for me, got my tickets for tomorrow. While I wasn't as entranced with it as many here, the movie experience was meant for special effects and that will be the Matrix experience.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  DLW Registered Member
 Date Joined Apr 2003 Total Posts : 2457 | Posted 5/15/2003 7:26 AM (GMT -6) |   | Here is a review written by an english-PhD friend of mine, read at your own risks...
1. fewer ideas: free will, the possibility that control doesn¹t stop at the end of the matrix and therefore the related possibility of the total undercutting of the religious framework (a potentially radical reversal). There are more ideas here than in most movies certainly; however, the film is much less rich idea-wise than TM. I¹m more than a little depressed about this... 2. little emotional involvement: unlike the first film which has brought tears to my eyes, this film left me flat 3. the action scenes: both unreal and un-engaging. This is part of the problem with making Neo invincible. Now that he is so strong his enemies end up being less personal (the many faces of Smith and the many many sentinels for instance). It would help if the sentinels were shown to the viewer a bit earlier in the film to prepare us mentally, but they are out of sight for a very long time. Very very little real tension for these reasons. Even the long car chase was rather boring. 4. strange parodic moments: it¹s almost like we are not meant to take this film seriously. Sure, there were cheesy moments in the first film, but we could still watch it seriously. There were moments of genuine camp this time. 5. M¹s dialogue even in the ³real world² is astonishingly bad; the tension between him and Lock (?) was a bit too obvious. 6. some really strange, incoherent moments: the sex scene/dance party for instance; I also felt that there were some not too subtle echoes of Star Wars; and poor costume design
Frankly, after the first hour I whispered to Dawn that I thought it was ³mediocre.² It was that bad (and she agreed). When Neo finally gets to the ³source² and has a nice chat with a fellow that looks rather like Siggy Freud things begin to get interesting and more involving. Coherence-wise, pacing puts this at least a few marks below the original. At the level of sheer enjoyment, the recent X-Men flick was twice as good.
The only really striking thing about this film was its ethnically diverse cast. The Bro¹s may be up to something here besides being good hearted liberals. . . Something about the future?
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth, From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth, From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth, Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Tigress Registered Member
 Date Joined Feb 2003 Total Posts : 1252 | Posted 5/15/2003 7:30 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
First, the person who was calling your position puritannical was Miss E, otherwise known as Empiress and I think she makes some good points. Christians draw upon Victorian sentiments of romantic love, when, for example, they write "Christian romance novels." Have you ever walked into your local Christian bookstore and seen some of these books? Just check out the front cover. It is a love that is pure but PASSIONLESS and almost sexless! I mean there is no "loins that throb," and no "breasts that heave." While some secular romance novels make light of sexuality by detaching it from deeply committed relationships and higlighting fleeting encounters, these Christian romance novels distort and cheapen life when they deny the force of sexual passion and desire. There are ways in which to put the erotic in books and film without "enticing one to sin", as in pornography. There's a huge difference. And I don't mean "Show her bathing, but only show her bare shoulders/ back to get the point across." Or as they use to do on the Walton's (or was that Little Outhouse on the Praire as Redd Foxx [I miss that guy] said on Sanford and Son?) when Ma and Pa went and had sex, they walked into the bedroom and closed the door. HA! Cute! But talk about taking the "twang" out of the lemon. For sure some the explicitness in film will "entice" you, but for some of us, it does diddly. And there are films that just concentrate on the physical so much so that no matter how mature of a Christian you are you need to know when to walk. Know what I mean?
Secondly, I am not questioning the right in which direction you want to take this thread. But I do have a right question your putting words in my post. It wasn't THAT big of a deal, but please, don't do it again. If you want to quote somebody, go back through the thread and see who EXACTLY you are quoting.
Third, again, I will restate my position. I empathsize with where you are coming from concerning the portrayal of women in popular art. Basically everyone has to be a Barbie doll, i.e. American Idol, Baywatch. There is some legitimacy to your concern. But my fear is when, as I said above, we judge works of art according to the confessional or moral content alone. Believe me, Christians have come far in the last twenty or so years. There was a time when only that which spoke of religious themes, or JPM's (Jesus's per minute) was worthy of being viewed, listened to, or wrote, painted about. So the fact that you (and many "cultural Christians") are willing to watch certain t.v. shows, listen to music, etc, that speak about things other than the religious, (also created by NON-CHRISTIANS) shows that we are more mature than where we were (by yesterdays and fundamentalistic standards, you would be very WORLDLY), yet we have a way to go.
Fourth, even more disturbing than just the "Barbie doll" portrayal is American sentiments that are far more subtle nature. If we judge works of art by moral criticism alone, we tend to ignore artistic features, formal characteristics, the relation of style to content and the construction of meaning. For example there are works of art that will have absolutely no foul language, total absence of sexual immorality, lack of nudity but are very post modernistic in their outlook which most Christians would condemn as moral relativism. Did you know that some of the worst films in America were John Wayne films? Yet these are films that most Christians would let their ten year old watch.
All I'm asking is that you go deeper than even what you have done here on this thread. And the ONLY way you can do that is by actively engaging the culture discerning as you go. The more you discern, the less the blindly you walk.
Now, on to "tickets.com" for "The Matrix."
P.S. Meph Man, my son and I have been reading Calvin and Hobbes together. One comic has Calvin blowing his nose, looking at his hanky and say, "Hey! No brains!" 
Brandon "Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs www.darwinhobbs.com
Hmmm...interesting..."Calvin and Hobbes" is my favorite comic strip! I wasn't putting words in your mouth. My statement about people calling my position Puritannical was in general. If anyone thought I meant that that you said that, they were wrong. I probably didn't make myself clear. But, I did interpret what you were saying as in agreement with Empiress' statement. So, again, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
Lastly, (we'd better knock this off or they're gonna ask us to start e-mailing each other) I'm being so adamant about this because I don't see you or most men really grasping how absolutely serious this issue of emotional pain is in regards to media images. I and so many females have severe emotional pain because of poor self-image as a direct result of the onslaught of all these images. I have to take anti-depression and anxiety medication for goodness' sake! And many other females have to as well. Granted that's not only b/c of our culture's treatment of us in the media, but it's a huge contributing factor. So, I guess I'm just looking for men to say, "Yes. Movies and photos, TV and music, and secular art is the avenue which this kind of emotional abuse is happening and therefore we as Christians need to not only be aware of and sensitive to our Christian sisters about it, but also prove that love in our actions by not buying into it."
Tigress
The Angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him, and He delivers them. -Psalm 34:7 | | Back to Top | | |
 |  honorman Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 1137 | Posted 5/15/2003 7:41 AM (GMT -6) |   | I think its important to realize with this movie and many others Christians walk a fine line between wanting to be pure and sticking their heads in the sand. While i appreciate Christian's sentiments, does being pure also mean not reading Judges which desribes the dismemberment of a woman? Or Song Of Soloman when it describes in detail erotic feelings for a woman? The list goes on. I think whenever Christians venture within the world they take a chance. But if we do not go out into the world and see what is going on, we become irrelevant to the world. For me, there must be a balance. I know Christians who hold Disney up to be godly, yet I still will not let my children watch "Hunchback," because of a lust scene in the middle of it. We all must make calls that are hard. But I think there must always be true balance. Christian has made a decision for his/her family to be godly, but that is their decision. Just because a christian goes to Matrix doesn't make them less godly.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  honorman Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 1137 | Posted 5/15/2003 7:44 AM (GMT -6) |   | DLW: sequels always suffer from the lack of newness and are almost always preceived as less than their ancestors. The buildup makes it worse. But if your professor cried in Matrix I would hate to think what he would have done if he preceived Reloaded as better. I don't think the world is ready for that! Doctor Boyd: props for just admitting to going. Most pastors are closet "worshippers" of such movies...
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  S.B.G. Registered Member
 Date Joined Jan 2003 Total Posts : 143 | Posted 5/15/2003 8:21 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
But I think there must always be true balance. Christian has made a decision for his/her family to be godly, but that is their decision. Just because a christian goes to Matrix doesn't make them less godly.
Well said Honorman.
We all have to answer to our own conscience and sensitivities. Sadly, I have been exposed to REAL pornography, I have seen REAL orgy scenes. So when I see something similar, I have ugly, painful associations with it.
This is the point Tigress is making; the pain she and other women experience because it is a reminder that so many men are double minded. It's not that erotism in and of itself is bad, or that we are afraid to experience our own sexual thoughts etc. it's about pain. Women are often afraid to trust men for fear that they are fantasizing about someone else. We don't want to be used while someone else’s body, or some remembered sex scene is running through the mind of our husband. That is why sex scenes are potentially threatening, because it can burn an impression on the brain.
But, I know that this doesn’t have to be the case. I know that a man who chooses not to take the path of fantasy need not carry the image home with him. But this is dangerous ground because of our “reptilian” minds, and involuntary physical responses. Each man should know what his breaking point is and guard his heart. BUT, in my opinion, if it creates a sense of inadequacy in his wife, he will opt out of looking, for her sake. For me, I don’t see the need to take chances, but that’s just me.
None of us know another's thoughts, motives or heart. So it would be very wrong to judge that someone is unchristian if he attended this film---I have nothing but deep respect for Greg Boyd, for instance, and I have no doubt that his thoughts are pure.
I really think men would benefit from being more sensitive to their wives in this area. A woman will have the freedom to be responsive if she knows her husband’s desires belong only to her.
S.B.G.
To understand and to be understood is bliss. | | Back to Top | | |
 |  DLW Registered Member
 Date Joined Apr 2003 Total Posts : 2457 | Posted 5/15/2003 8:26 AM (GMT -6) |   | My English PhD student friend is a bit weird. He shows films like Blade and Starship troopers to his classes.
I guess you do what you can to try and reach students.
I was thinking of protesting the sex-scenes by not watching the Matrix Reloaded until it comes out on video. That sends the only signal that Hollywood types really pay attention to.
My idea is that we should set up a progressive tax on the advertisements for movies. That will let more indies get a subsidy to let more people know about their movies and check the ability of Hollywood to over-sell their block-buster productions. We could also tax sequels, while we're at it and tax pornography perhaps by setting up rather high wage-ceilings for compensation of actors/actrices for nudity in a film. I think they do something like that in France, cause while there is often some nudity, there usually is relatively little of it in the film.
dlw dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth, From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth, From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth, Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Tigress Registered Member
 Date Joined Feb 2003 Total Posts : 1252 | Posted 5/15/2003 8:40 AM (GMT -6) |   | I just want to make clear that I'm not saying that people are not Christian or are somehow being less Christian by watching secular movies. I myself do plan to see "The Matrix: Reloaded" tomorrow night. I bought the ticket on Sunday. But I AM disappointed that once again the filmmakers have resorted to using the "obligatory" sex/nudity scene to get their message across when they honestly don't need to do that.
I have the utmost respect for Professor Boyd as well and I certainly don't condemn him or anyone who chooses to view certain movies that I might disapprove of. I do however challenge people about them sometimes as I have here. That's what healthy debate is. Thank you Everyone for your time, patience and thoughtfulness in response to my inquiries - especially you, BBBCanada 
Tigress
The Angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him, and He delivers them. -Psalm 34:7 | | Back to Top | | |
 |  DLW Registered Member
 Date Joined Apr 2003 Total Posts : 2457 | Posted 5/15/2003 8:41 AM (GMT -6) |   | Another friend of mine comments on the Focus on the Family review...
It's hardly surprising that Focus on the Family would dislike the Matrix. On the one hand I can see the point: the Christian elements in the first movie were like the devil quoting scripture. The Wachovski brothers lure Christians into thinking they have found something pure in this film, only to slam them with orgies and nihilistic philosophy in the second film.
I can also see how the philosophy of the Matrix could be muddled by this second film. Is it not contradictory that the first film suggested our senses cannot be trusted, a basic tenet of skepticism, and yet in the second film (again, not having seen it) it appears that sensuality in all its forms is glorified. As Todd has pointed out, this is the contradiction at the heart of Star Wars: Yoda and Obi-Wan on the one hand tell Jedi trainees to trust their "feelings", and yet at the same time, not to trust their senses (i.e., Luke trains blind on the Millenium Falcon en route to Alderaan). The difference between "feelings" and "senses" is too thin a hair for me to split, so I'll go no farther than to say that schizophrenia seems to be a hallmark of American movies. Maybe it's a flaw. But directors can never seem to get their world view/belief system sorted out.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth, From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth, From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth, Lord Deliver Me.
Edited by - DLW on 05/15/2003 1:42:15 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Christian Registered Member
 Date Joined May 2003 Total Posts : 78 | Posted 5/15/2003 4:51 PM (GMT -6) |   | BBBCanada is making some uncalled for comments to Tigress. Are these posts moderated at all? What is allowed in here and not allowed?
If a person chooses not to see a movie with reasons for it being they find problems with the content, it seems that those who don't see these same reasons then judge them. When you find problem with someone finding something to be impure, then you are judging that person. Anyone desiring to live a pure life is seen, even by some Christian communities, as puritanical and sheltered. Are you not acting judgmentally when you tell someone they are sticking their heads in the sand because of their choice? It is hypocritical to judge a person for not wanting to partake of something that you have no problem with. Tigress is being judged for her views, comments, and decisions even being told that she walks blindly.
Edited by - Christian on 05/17/2003 5:44:11 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  adiaphora Registered Member
 Date Joined Jun 2001 Total Posts : 123 | Posted 5/15/2003 5:03 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote: Are these posts moderated at all? What is allowed in here and not allowed?
Yes, posts are moderated, but only minimally. Threats to self or others are automatic grounds for deletion. Other than that, the decision to delete posts is decided on a case by case basis.
adiaphora
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  honorman Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 1137 | Posted 5/15/2003 7:41 PM (GMT -6) |   | Christian: are you saying BBB cannot disagree with Tigress and state why without being judgmental? Or is that judgmental? A person can judge a decision by another person without passing judgment on that person's heart.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  Empiress Registered Member
 Date Joined Jan 2002 Total Posts : 363 | Posted 5/15/2003 8:34 PM (GMT -6) |   | Just got home from the Matrix.
Regarding the "orgy" scene:
I can't help but believe that those who called it an "orgy" were projecting or had wishful thinking. Had I not been told it was an "orgy" beforehand, I would have seen it simply as celebrative dancing with some sexual overtones. I also saw the scene more in the context of a metaphor: the celebration of being human and being alive given Morpheus' speech just before the scene. But then again, I don't believe that the sensuous side of humanity is evil and didn't see the scene as trying to show debauchery either.
When I've read about the dancing the children of Israel and King David did, I can't help but wonder why dancing in the context of worship is always termed "pagan" by Christians. Heck, I'd incorporate dancing into Christian worship in a heart beat. But anyway...
--------------
Other thoughts on the movie:
Doesn't anyone else think that both free will and determinism are being presented as competing forces and that determinism=lack of hope/faith while free will=hope/faith?
I think the "architect" is lying and is the "Deciever" who tries to steal Neo's hope and creates a crisis of faith by saying everything is predetermined! I saw the movie actualling equating determinism with evil/the enemy to humanity because it takes away all meaning and hope. Anyone agree?
I thought the movie was still rich with theology/philosophy. I found the first part of the movie mediocre with a lot of cheesiness but the second half got really interesting. It certainly didn't disappoint on the special effects. :-)
---------------------------
I did just want to make a few clarifying remarks because whenever one calls for "balance" between two extremes, it is very easy for that person's position to be pigeon-holed into something it is NOT, thus leading to a great deal of misunderstanding.
Seesaw said:
quote: I understand what you are saying Empiress but it is almost the mentality of doing something simply because the majority of the world is doing it. Many cultures also practice vodoo, have rampant prostitution, worship idols, and so forth. I can be pure and yet still relate to an impure person without participating in the impurity.
Let me clarify Seesaw. I am NOT advocating we DO anything related to viewing or not viewing movies. That is something people must decide for themselves between them and God. I AM saying that we ought to be careful that our attitudes, particularly those we hold about the priority of "sheilding ourselves" or keeping ourselves "pure" do not lead us to distance ourselves from the experience and reality of others. If I am more concerned about my own purity than I am about helping a steet kid, I obviously could not tolerate being in his/her presence for any amount of time. The fact is, this is a very common problem in the Church...I am not speaking of theorecticals here.
Seesaw said:
quote: I notice a disturbing line of thinking and that is that in order to be a loving person one must either be like the sinner or not tell the sinner he is in sin.
I am NOT saying we ought to "be like the sinner"...I don't even know where you got that concept from what I wrote. I stated repeatedly in my post the need to hold every thought captive to Christ.
The fact is, when we get involved in helping others, it will get messy...avoiding the mess altogether is not the solution. I find it a very dangerous attitude to hold that our chief aim as Christians is being somehow "soil free" and sheilded from all things negative.... because that means we'll never meet those who live in the "soil." Jesus went to the people...the tax collectors and the prostitutes, he even allowed a prostitute to touch, cry, and anoint him...it was the religious folks that looked down on him with disgust..."how could you let her do that? how could you be with those people?" Making our own "purity" our main priority (which is a great luxury in itself in our priveledged society) puts purity over love of others, and that's always problematic. That's the point: it's one of attitude.
When I hear comments on this thread that reveal such utter shock and horror over particular themes in a movie...it worries me because that same shock and horror translates into our reactions to those who live in the reality of those themes everyday...whether they be violence, trauma, or sexuality.
As per Tigress' remark:
quote: It's interesting that so many Christians spend so much time trying to justify the use and viewing of a medium which in and of itself causes hurt and pain to so many people. I have here clearly in all of my posts how hurt I've been because of all the portrayals of women in the media (or arts as some prefer to say) and even though the hurting of people's feelings and self-confidence is very much a sin, people, even Christians, want to simply dismiss that as trivial when compared to the so-called higher purpose of reaching out to the world through the very means causing the hurt. It IS important to reach out to the world, but Jesus never intended to use means that hurt anyone.
It seems you also misunderstand my point Tigress. I have no interest in justifying a particular "medium." A medium (such as film) is neutral in and of itself, it's what people do with the medium that counts: do we make a work of beauty and art or do we create something evil? Additionally, what is "sin" for one person is not "sin" for another as Paul explains in 1 Corinthians. But I believe much of what is presented in film and the media is evil and degrading to women. I myself as a woman, have been hurt by it. I actually believe that beauty magazines are a huge source of evil in our world: in fact I've suffered from disorders related to body hatred because of it. But again, that has nothing to do with my point about attitudes and I hope my explanation to Seesaw was clarifying.
So I do want to validate you...your point about the media often being damaging and evil is one I agree with wholeheartedly. But hopefully you understand better where I'm coming from.
Re: Puritanism. The only problem with Puritanism was that it's chief motive was keeping oneself pure at the --sacrifice-- of love and mercy. It's a matter of balance because obviously being "pure" is important. Yet "purity" was NOT Jesus' primary call on our lives, only part of a wider call to love. Purity cannot be an end in itself, purity only matters to the extent it helps us to love God and others. If it becomes an obstacles to loving others (as it did for the Pharisees for example), then it must be relinquished. Purity is often and idol for Christians and that's why it's a concern.
Additionally, I did not see any of your comments Tigress to be particularly "puritanical;" I was referring to some other comments on this thread that sounded puritanical in nature.
Blessings, ~E
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  One Love Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003 Total Posts : 13888 | Posted 5/16/2003 5:13 AM (GMT -6) |   | SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!
Sup, Miss E. I agreed with ya on the so-called "orgy" scene. Whatever... 
quote: Doesn't anyone else think that both free will and determinism are being presented as competing forces and that determinism=lack of hope/faith while free will=hope/faith?
Actually, I think that something else is being said. I think it's showing that overemphasis on either free will OR determinism is misguided as hell. Neo's preoccupation with freedom seemed to blind him to just how much the determined dependability of technology actually PROVIDED for the existence of his freedom. (Would Neo be jack without the Matrix itself??) He obviously didn't understand just HOW predictable human beings themselves can really be. The Architect's obsession with mathematical precision and determinism seemed to blind him (at least early on) to the power of choice and hope that human beings seem to need to live. (The Oracle showed him his error.)
Both eventually learned, in some regard, that there is INTERPLAY between both that had to be at least acknowledged, if not respected. Both choice AND determinism can be overstated. Heh.
****************************************
quote: I think the "architect" is lying and is the "Deciever" who tries to steal Neo's hope and creates a crisis of faith by saying everything is predetermined! I saw the movie actualling equating determinism with evil/the enemy to humanity because it takes away all meaning and hope. Anyone agree?
Nah. I think that Architect was telling the truth. He basically played on the "conditions" that the One(s) usually carried: a sense of solidarity for the human race AS A WHOLE. And placed a hellified choice before the One: Does the needs of the many truly outweigh the desires of the one? The outcome seemed easily predictable to me. Moreover, even IF the One was so irrational and/or self-centered enough to choose his OWN way, the Machine forces were overwhelming (as the devastated human counterstrike showed)...AND they had done this 6 times before.
[Digression: If you think about it, it was a BRILLIANT idea to keep human indeterminacy within CONTROLLABLE levels! Knowing that an anomalous "One" would eventually emerge sometime, ALLOW for a resistance to exist and create some type of quasi-religious messianic deal to go along with it. The foolish idiots have the existential feelings of choice and hope...that is directed JUST as the Machines generally wish. Using human tendencies towards faith and hope as another means of control. Simply brilliant.]
The only thing is the CHANCE happening with Neo's "merging" with Mr. Smith from the first movie. It seems obvious that this occurance is NEW to the whole dynamic...and that will make all the difference.
****************************************
Something that I didn't think many people caught was the amazing, controlling power of dogmatic belief and the despair at its destruction in the face of the facts. I drew an immediate line of similarity between Morpheus' unshakable faith in his belief and the "true believers" in many religions, including Christianity. I thought about the first Matrix. And how Morpheus' encounter with the Oracle changed his life and made him a true believer. If you recall, even the Oracle herself said that he believed "blindly" Remember, he said that he had been looking for Neo his entire life...which at least translates to a long time. He believed in the prophecy. His ardent belief not only lead him to becoming an influential, charismatic leader among the human (among the most infamous to the Machines), but actually lead him to finding the One. And of course, his finding the One only served to BOLSTER his belief in the prophecy. And the so-called triumph of the One bolstered it even more.
By the time of the second movie, Morpheus "knows" that victory is certain. He kept just calling it a matter of time. His faith in Neo and the fulfilment of the prophecy is resolute...hence his moving speech at Zion and his mini-soliloquy to his strike force right before they started their main operation. And even though he gave lip-service to the possibility that he was wrong, he actually gave no real thought to it. He was just a true believer....he was bound for a fall.
My good friend and I couldn't help but laugh out loud in the theatre at Morpheus' face when Neo hit in with PART of the truth (I can't even imagine how he would have felt if Neo would have told him that this has all been done 5 times before!!) and when he saw his ship destroyed. It honestly never really occured to him that everything he believed may have been a fabrication. What made this so ironic was that, being who he was, he should have known just HOW adept the Machines were at deception and control. Ah, well. I noticed how Trinity and Neo weren't NEARLY as devastated as Morpheus was. But hey, they probably weren't AS deeply invested, right?
I immediate thought of the many Christians who are so rigidly resolute in their theological positions. The "soon" coming of Christ. The speculations on heaven and hell. The "irrefutable" evidences that they use to justify their beliefs. Maybe they've felt the "undeniable" feelings of God's love and spirit move upon them. Maybe they've had a Wesleyan warming of the heart. Maybe they've been convinced by a great preacher. By whatever means, they've become true believers. Converted and MAKING converts (or disciples, if you choose). And somehow, many of them seem to find JUST the right corroborating experiences or information they need to keep believing. Now, do I have a problem with believing? Heck, no. I think that a person can rationally hold belief (via principle of belief conservation). Nor do I have a problem with a person fully dedicating themselves to their belief...LIVING it. What I do have a problem with is the single-minded, blind adherence to their belief where things that should be held as TENTATIVE are held as CERTAINTIES. You'd think that some of these people would be able to look at ALL the evidences a tad more objectively. You'd think that some of these people could have a LITTLE more ambiguity in their theologies. But nope. They know that they know that they know. Beliefs are CERTAINTIES. And what happens when things get hectic...when other facts seem to contradict their current beliefs? Rationalization. Postdiction. Denial. Possibly depair-filled revolt. I've personally seen the last one happen more than once.
And I also thought of how many Christians are controlled like so much sheep by a few who MANIPULATE the faith and hopes of the masses towards their own agendas. Boy, it's easy. "Turn to your neighbor and say..." Given church history, how can we remain so friggin fundamentally ignorant of the power of religion to CONTROL. Jesus is coming back, people. Give till yer hearts are content! Heh.
Whatever.
There are so many uncertainties when it comes to religious belief and such, it amazes me that so many people place so much on it...to the point that their lives mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING without it. Just like Morpheus felt about his OWN existence within the context of the prophecy.
[Digression: Did y'all notice the constant emphasis on "purpose" in the movie? EVERYONE was on it. How even Mr. Smith was ticked because he felt that Neo had robbed him of HIS purpose, because he was free of the Matrix. To me, he felt the bittersweet feeling of being SEPARATED from his codependently link to the Matrix...for he had yet to find his OWN meaning. How many Christians are just like this? If Christianity turned out not to be true, some of them would probably take a gun to their head. They would not even be able to imagine themselves otherwise. Seriously.]
At any rate, I suppose that I laughed at Morpheus' situation when I should have felt sorry for him. Oh, well. He's not the first person it's happened to...and he won't be the last. I'll feel sorry for the next one.
Well, enough of my nonsense. I've got to go.
Holla,

"Smile. It could be worse." --from a good friend.
Edited by - MephEternal on 05/16/2003 10:36:29 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  DLW Registered Member
 Date Joined Apr 2003 Total Posts : 2457 | Posted 5/16/2003 5:20 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Christian: are you saying BBB cannot disagree with Tigress and state why without being judgmental? Or is that judgmental? A person can judge a decision by another person without passing judgment on that person's heart.
no that's discerning... dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth, From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth, From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth, Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
 |  rossfadeinout Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 428 | Posted 5/16/2003 5:40 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hey all, Went and watched the movie last night; its cheesy through most of the movie, with Neo being pretty much invincible. Just got a few points to throw out there...
1. Empiress, I think that you're right about the contrast between determinism and no hope vs. free-will and hope. The whole scene with the "architect" towards the end was tough to process (caught me off guard) but I see him as a deceiver sent to destroy hope.
2. My take on the "temple" scene and the whole dance "celebration" thing. The scene was clearly a celebration of the people of Zion's humanity and passions. As such it is "worship" in the worldview of those in Zion. Freedom to be human is their goal- it is what they live for.
And to me that brings us to the difficulity of the struggle in the movie. What is the motivation for the struggle against the machines? Neo is confused about what he is to do, and ultimately why he is to do anything. The reason is there is no clear reference for what gives value and meaning to life. There is no mention of any reference to the absolute. It goes back to one of the fundamental points of life- that without a universal standard of what is the good, what is the beautiful, there is no way to judge which action is what ought to be done.
I guess that the beginnings of an answer are found in Neo and Trinity's love for each other. But this is (to me) not compelling; it seemed forced. Of course that could be just poor acting .
Anyway I have some more thoughts but got to get back to work.
Still processing all of this....
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
 |  honorman Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 1137 | Posted 5/16/2003 6:15 AM (GMT -6) |   | If there a "sin" out there, leave it to christians to blow it all out of proportion. I know I do... I do like, however, that regardless of how good or bad this issue of Matrix is, it gets people talking about some important issues...God can use just about anything to get is message across is what I say...
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  S.B.G. Registered Member
 Date Joined Jan 2003 Total Posts : 143 | Posted 5/16/2003 6:25 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
If there a "sin" out there, leave it to christians to blow it all out of proportion. I know I do... I do like, however, that regardless of how good or bad this issue of Matrix is, it gets people talking about some important issues...God can use just about anything to get is message across is what I say...
Again, well stated Honorman!
We have touched on the deeper issues of the effects of the media on women's self-esteem and men's self control. Whether or not this movie does or does not have an orgy, this has been an interesting discussion! 
S.B.G.
To understand and to be understood is bliss. | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Seesaw Registered Member
 Date Joined May 2003 Total Posts : 70 | Posted 5/16/2003 7:28 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote: If there a "sin" out there, leave it to christians to blow it all out of proportion. I know I do...
quote: God can use just about anything to get is message across is what I say...
There are two extremes with the way we view sin, one being "blowing it out of proportion" and the other being that we don't consider it sin and justify it. God can use things but when those things are not delivered with love, the message is often not received.
If a person is judged for their stand on an issue that they find to be sinful, how is that loving? If it becomes legalism, it ought to be revealed as such but I don't think any of those who are not wanting to see matrix are being legalistic about it. I also read some posts that had a hint of flaunting and taunting to them.
A scenario: Betty won't drink cola because she's on a diet. Joe drinks cola and is not on a diet. Joe tells Betty that cola is great and she should drink it. Betty shares her beliefs regarding caffeine and sugar and her problems with it. She mentions how it is addictive. She talks about the detriments of too much caffeine, how it affects her children's behavior, how it is not a good use of her money. Joe does not agree with these things. In fact, he has invested in the company. If Joe goes on to tell Betty that she is blind or ignorant or being too uptight about it, and if he dismisses her beliefs because his are different, is that then crossing a line into judging and not showing love towards a person because they have chosen to refrain from something that someone else has chosen to partake in?
It seems that this might be what Christian is getting at. I have noticed a similar phenomenon within the Christian community.
Edited by - Seesaw on 05/16/2003 12:32:15 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Seesaw Registered Member
 Date Joined May 2003 Total Posts : 70 | Posted 5/16/2003 7:44 AM (GMT -6) |   | I do believe however in speaking the truth in love as we are told to do. But speaking an opinion in love is not quite the same thing. One can certainly speak an opinion in love but opinions and truth are not necessarily the same thing. Sometimes we might come across unloving when speaking truth. To the adulterer justifying his relationship, for us to say, "Stop it. It is wrong" may be taken as unloving even though it might be delivered with nothing but love. We speak truth, we do so in love, even if it might be viewed as judgemental. The reason we speak truth into a person's life is so that it will expose the darkness. Even a Christian can be deceived and truth (God's Word) is the weapon we use to fight Satan (deception) so it is important we admonish each other. Obviously, name-calling, arrogance, and so forth will not effectively deliver truth since those heart attitudes are not loving. An opinion though is not necessarily truth and while our opinions are near and dear to us, sometimes we can become insistent upon them and as an end result end up judging a person who does not agree with what is our opinion. Of course, we also must be in the Word and have a right understanding of the word in order to distinguish truth from opinion.
Edited by - Seesaw on 05/16/2003 12:51:18 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  might-be-don Registered Member
 Date Joined Jun 2001 Total Posts : 830 | Posted 5/16/2003 8:16 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote: To the adulterer justifying his relationship, for us to say, "Stop it. It is wrong" may be taken as unloving even though it might be delivered with nothing but love.
Hi sEEsaW,
I don't recall anyone in this group saying we shouldn't speak the truth in love. But, we will hear them say that we should do it like Jesus did. Live among them, share their hopes and dreams, feed their children, heal the sick, cast out demons, show them the Father, and then you can lovingly point them to the Father. When I see you ( in the plural sense ) doing all these things, I might pay attention. To me, "nothing but love" would be demonstrated by the above.
peace and love, don
--- "No Rules, just Right" Outback Steakhouse | | Back to Top | | |
 |  groovychick Registered Member
 Date Joined May 2003 Total Posts : 14 | Posted 5/16/2003 8:35 AM (GMT -6) |   | 'course ya can't see the love don! It's the net! You can't see the embrace, tears in eyes, tenderness of face, trembling in voice in sentence form on the net, now can ya? Even a big, loud, "Stop it you fool" is loving when a person's burning themself and their house down! You with me?
That's a big beef I have with open view. Seems the love in open view is the same as anything goes and don't your dare say a thing bout that! Love in open view is more like a free for all with no boundaries. I've been browsing here a bit before joining and have seen it in what I've read. There's a group in here who got the put-downs and the sarcastic jokes mastered! You talk the talk but don't walk the walk!
The Matrix is the thang talked about all over! That's Hollywood for ya! I'm not into it though. I respect people who avoid it. No one ought to knock 'em for that. Rock on!
Edited by - groovychick on 05/16/2003 1:43:39 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  DLW Registered Member
 Date Joined Apr 2003 Total Posts : 2457 | Posted 5/16/2003 11:54 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
That's a big beef I have with open view. Seems the love in open view is the same as anything goes and don't your dare say a thing bout that! Love in open view is more like a free for all with no boundaries. I've been browsing here a bit before joining and have seen it in what I've read. There's a group in here who got the put-downs and the sarcastic jokes mastered! You talk the talk but don't walk the walk!
I think that is unfair characterization of the Open-View. We disagree quite often about whether we should be free regarding something or whether rules, that are enforced, should exist and yes the debates do get heated. The thing is that a commitment to the reality of human freedom and openness of the future, leaves much open for disagreement(which aspects of the future are open and subject to being changed, how should our ecclesiastical institutions seek to condition our future choices...).
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth, From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth, From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth, Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
 | 178 posts in this thread. Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:50 PM (GMT -6) There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads. In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3 dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|