|
Rules
Jun 20, 2005 19:56:19 GMT
Post by asimus on Jun 20, 2005 19:56:19 GMT
Hi there welcome. You know the drill now. PG-13 or below. You can rewrite any film with CE in you like. Add missing scenes, change endings, whatever you like. Have fun.
|
|
|
Rules
Jun 20, 2005 20:19:54 GMT
Post by RevdKathy on Jun 20, 2005 20:19:54 GMT
Oh yeah - I completely rewrote 'The Second Coming' with proper theology yesterday!
Something like this (damn here goes my early night). Same start, same lead character. After leaving hospital he tries to lie low. But can't help helping people. Whenever he meets people in pain/sickness etc, he heals them. Word gets out pretty quick, and people converge on Manchester looking for healings. (This is much more like the original- well, not Manchester, but the rest) The police take him in for his own protection.
At that point Steve realises that he's there to announce Judgement day. In three days time, the world will end, and everyone will be judged. The mob turns very nasty: now he's being held for his own protection, along with his friends and Judith.
The programme then centres on people outside asking themselves whether they are ready for judgement day. And Steve inside, seeing them in his head, and despairing.
There was a lovely speech for when he makes the announcment:
"This isn't about churches and priests and holy books. It's not about how many times you go to temple or mosque. it's not about whether you call the Holy One God or Allah or Krishna. It's about You. About who you are. About how much love there is in you, how you've treated the people around you. How much love you've shown the people you share this little planet with. That's what's up for judgement. You are. Are you ready for that?" (I could really hear Chris as Steve delivering this speech...)
As the days pass and the riots continue, Steve realises that the world just isn't ready. People aren't ready for judgement. He begins to despair. Some he will do on the morning of the third day will set judgement in motion. And everyone will be damned. It's breaking his heart. Judith tries to comfort him (cue love scene).
And that's when he sees the get-out clause. Judgement will be set off by something he does on the third day. What if he's not there to do it? His friends try to talk him out of a growing resolve, pointing out that if people aren't ready to be judged, that's their fault.But Steve cares too much.
"I need to buy them more time!" "But how much time? Will humanity ever be ready?" "I dunno. But they're not ready now. They need more time" "How much can you buy? A year? A century? A millenium?" "I dunno. But I can't do this to them. They're not ready"
So he hangs himself in the darkness before the morning of the third day. Out of compassion for humanity, to spare us a judgement we're not ready for.
Well, I liked my version better. This is a cut down version - it was rather longer in my head.
BTW Asimus - love the new forum!
|
|
|
Rules
Jun 21, 2005 17:28:16 GMT
Post by asimus on Jun 21, 2005 17:28:16 GMT
yeah, i thought this was a great idea! likeing that actually. though im not sure about the whole not ready thing. after all, wasnt the point of jesus' death to bring us back to God. what happened there cause i see no evidence of it... nice idea. keep it up!
|
|
|
Rules
Jun 21, 2005 18:07:04 GMT
Post by RevdKathy on Jun 21, 2005 18:07:04 GMT
Well exactly 2000 years on, and we're still not ready. So he comes back to check - and realises how badly we've screwed up the message. And buys us more time.
|
|
|
Rules
Jun 22, 2005 17:17:52 GMT
Post by asimus on Jun 22, 2005 17:17:52 GMT
good for him! man, my head aches. i did the first two A level RE exams today.
|
|
|
Rules
Jun 22, 2005 19:15:32 GMT
Post by RevdKathy on Jun 22, 2005 19:15:32 GMT
Hey - that sounds like fun! I never did the A level (school wouldn't run a class for one pupil), went straight to the degree, and postgrad courses. I Loved the whole subject. Managed to get a class on manual handling and back acre discussing the Ayurvedic system with the chakras today!
|
|
|
Rules
Jun 22, 2005 19:24:27 GMT
Post by asimus on Jun 22, 2005 19:24:27 GMT
oh dear God! *head explodes* actually that sounds interesting. i love eastern philosophy and the more ancient western stuff like plato and descartes. but stuff like the verification principle. "is talk of religion meaningless?" yawn! though i did like the one question about "God is clearly shown through holy scripture. discuss." brilliant. three page rant about corruption and power mad men in charge. oh yeah! nailed that one i must say.
|
|
|
Rules
Jun 22, 2005 19:54:38 GMT
Post by RevdKathy on Jun 22, 2005 19:54:38 GMT
Well done!!! Philosophy was always my worst selection. Biblical studies gave me the chance to play in language (my favourite medium), and I adored Doctrine. But arguments for the existence of God were on the boring side. I do recall wondering whether I could muster a PhD on the ontological argument by discussing whether uniqueness is a quality. It was going to be subtitled "But the most wonderful thing about tiggers..." I have a considerable interest in the ayurvedic system: I trained as a spiritual healer, and basically that draws very heavily on the whole system of energy bodies, colours, and chakras. Which made studying spine care and posture very interesting (when frankly, otherwise it would have been dull as hell!) My trouble with the claims that any scripture makes for itself (including the one I adopted) is that it's an internal system. Like me telling you I'm the finest preacher ever - and who says so? I think anyone adopting a religious system is checking it against something in themselves - their own experience, religious tendencies - the 'spark of the Holy in each of us'. You pick the religious system that most nearly conforms to the Holy as you have already met him/her/it. Which actually does bring me back on topic. See, Jesus as I experience him is not unlike that Steve bloke. But there are a few serious differences. I want to rewrite that bit: just as, given the choice, I'd rewrite some of the bits of scripture. Elisha and the bears springs to mind. (edited for typos)
|
|
|
Rules
Jun 22, 2005 20:13:11 GMT
Post by asimus on Jun 22, 2005 20:13:11 GMT
for me scripture and in fact structured religion annoys me. it is so open to interpretation. you go to church and you get some guy (or gal) telling you this is what God is, this is what the bible says. and i always feel like saying no. this is your opinion of god based on your interpretation of the bible. or in fact any religion.
on the second coming, i know there were some paralells between steve and jesus, but i dont think there were enough to try and say (whether it has been said or not) that it is a satire. i dont think that steves death was meant to mirror jesus, or eve his life was meant to mirror jesus. i personally think it was more about proving god existed and then killing him to get across the point that we would be better off without him. it was RTD having a rant about the wrongness of religion. a very well acted, very entertaining ramt, but a rant none the less. personally, i feel it would have worked better if steve hadnt been the son of the christian god, but just the divine on earth. no labels or association with any religion. if you study pagen religion at all, one teaching i read said that god was like a diamond. its the same god, but every religion just sees a different face.
|
|
|
Rules
Jun 23, 2005 6:59:57 GMT
Post by RevdKathy on Jun 23, 2005 6:59:57 GMT
I'm happy with that interpretation. My beef is that the effort was made clearly to link it to God as the Christians see him (and yeah, mostly it is 'him' for Christians). And I think as a result it's a rather unpleasant distortion of what christianity says about God. I think the actual 'incarnation' thing was portrayed beautifully (and Chris has the presence to carry it off), but the presentation of christian theology was decidedly warped. Russell said he actually read the New Testament in preparation, and was surprised at how different what it actually says is from what he thought it said. He still missed some of the major key points, IMHO.
I also think there were much better ways of having God kill religion, without killing God - if you get my drift. And yeah, I also happen to believe that most of the time the biggest obstacle to people finding God is organised religion of any sort.
|
|
|
Rules
Jun 23, 2005 18:04:11 GMT
Post by flipbfc on Jun 23, 2005 18:04:11 GMT
I think you only have to look at Hinduism (the numbers that believe and the longevity) to see that perhaps organised religion is not the way. It's always been my opinion that if there is a higher power then in reality all these different religions are aiming at the same thing and just have varying opinions about it. However, most religions set down ways & means of being highly holy if you like and being saved, some in great details and some in general terms. Problem is that if we are talking about an unknown entity (like an unknown place), how can anyone say how to reach it for sure. Isn’t it better to leave the individual to find out ? I think that if true religion is the realisation of god or this higher power then organised religion is perhaps an oxymoron because by setting down paths and strategies and bounds you are limiting the power for novel thought and novel breakthrough and thus more likely blocking any path to enlightenment.
|
|
|
Rules
Jun 23, 2005 18:10:32 GMT
Post by RevdKathy on Jun 23, 2005 18:10:32 GMT
Trouble is that Hinduism also led to the caste system, which was surely an abomination. And people being left to die uncared for on the streets of Indian cities. Hinduism has enormous riches. It allows people to find the divine in whatever 'picture' of the holy works for them. But in its own way, it has, in many places, become just as oppressive and destructive as the worst excesses of Christian or Islamic fundamentalism. India, too, has its religious wars.
|
|
|
Rules
Jun 23, 2005 18:25:43 GMT
Post by flipbfc on Jun 23, 2005 18:25:43 GMT
Yes I totally agree the caste system has been an abomination as you say in Hindu society for centuries. In terms of damage to human progress and suffering, it did much greater damage for a much longer period to a great many people than the slave system of the western world ever did in the Indian subcontinent. However, if you look at the relgious works and history of the region Hinduism does not support caste system. The focus of Hinduism is on the individual and his salvation not on his caste or its privileges. The basis for the caste system is the Manusmriti which was probably edited and reedited a hundred or thousand times by different scholars during different periods to justify this horror.
Anyway that is an aside, I was in no way intending to justify Hinduism or set it up as a basis for relgion. All I meant was that perhaps the lack of a leading set of fundamentals in relation to what or who you worship may give us a better chance and finding truth. To quote " While religion means to bind, Dharma (regional hinduism) means to hold. What man holds on to is his inner law, which leads from ignorance to Truth." I've always liked that quote because you can only live to that which you hold dear. Hindu thought distinguishes itself by strongly encouraging tolerance for different beliefs since temporal systems cannot claim sole understanding of the one overall Truth.
|
|
|
Rules
Jun 23, 2005 18:50:40 GMT
Post by asimus on Jun 23, 2005 18:50:40 GMT
and people say that a bunch of fan girls cant have an intellectual conversation. and i resent that term... fangirl. ugh! makes me sound like a stalker.
|
|
|
Rules
Jun 23, 2005 19:32:51 GMT
Post by RevdKathy on Jun 23, 2005 19:32:51 GMT
I'd agree with you, Flip, that one of the exciting things about hinduism is that it allows for everyone to find their own path. It's part of the reason I find it so attractive. But I'm not blind to the fact that even so, power-hungry and wealth-hungry people have made a living out of running temples, being priests, and prescribing behaviour. Like so many other things, the ideal is pure - but it's human and subject to corruption. If you go back to the things we know Jesus actually said, there's very little there that would the support the church as it exists today. There's an injunction against setting one person as authority over another, for starters. The problem isn't so much with 'religion' per se, which should be just a bunch of people sharing ideas and experiences, rejoicing in their differences and supporting each other, as with the sad human face of it, filled with people using it as a means of social control, power-mongering, wealth garnering... all the usual rubbish human beings mistakenly go after. And I'd argue that for just about any religion. Even Islam, which we see today in such a negative light, has a lot of good in it. And Asi, I'm too old to be a fangirl. Can I be a fan-old-lady? (Though not quite that old... fan-woman, perhaps?) Everyone knows I'm only good for making lewd suggestions about blow-up Chris dolls...
|
|