O'Reilly and Voight go at it - The Passion

[Ipecac]

Two intellectual heavyweights, chock full of an accurate knowledge of history, discuss the Passion of the Christ. ;)

O'Reilly v. Voight (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114351,00.html)


BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Back of the Book" segment tonight, "The Passion of the Christ" was again the number one earning movie in the country. It has grossed more than $265 million in the USA, making it one of the most successful films of all time. But the controversy continues to rage.

Joining us now from Los Angeles is Academy Award-winning actor, Jon Voight, a Catholic, who says he is troubled by the film.

Now this is just a conversation between two Catholic guys, you and me.

They go on to debate the various parts of the film that are or aren't historically accurate.

O'REILLY: ... I went in, I saw the movie, and the movie, to me, was a fairly faithful adaptation of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I didn't have any problem with it. I didn't think it was anti-Semitic. I thought it was too violent, and I told everybody I can't recommend it because it was too violent. But I am -- I continue to be very distressed by the accusations against Gibson.

How do you see it?

VOIGHT: Well, let me say -- you say it's an accurate representation of the gospels, and I -- let me tell you something that isn't in the gospels, Bill.

There's a scene where the priest from the temple with the temple guards beat Jesus to within an inch of his life, cover his head with a bag, throw him over a bridge, pull him back on chains, almost break him in half, and there are devils or demonic figures lurking, smiling, jeering under the bridge. That is not in the gospels.

I understand that they believe in all this stuff and it's a fair subject for debate, but man, once you've dropped your religious beliefs, as I have, this starts to sound like two small kids talking about whether Star Wars is better than Star Trek.

[Denise]

[star trek geek] "What happened to the original Klingons? I mean they are nothing like the Klingons from the original series!!!"[/star trek geek]

[hgc]

I saw that, and it's true. But to credit Voight, he was make more of a point about how Gibson added his own touches, beyond what's in the Gospels, that further demonizes the Jews and softens the responsibility of Pilate. So even within the context of discussing myth-as-history, he's making a valid point.

And to the point of the Catholic-to-Catholic thing, screw O'Reilly. Any literate person can read the Gospels and express valid opinions on these things. You don't have to be a believer to speak up.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by hgc
But to credit Voight, he was make more of a point about how Gibson added his own touches, beyond what's in the Gospels, that further demonizes the Jews and softens the responsibility of Pilate. So even within the context of discussing myth-as-history, he's making a valid point.

Yes. I don't disagree.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Denise
[star trek geek] "What happened to the original Klingons? I mean they are nothing like the Klingons from the original series!!!"[/star trek geek]

I've had many discussions over the course of my life about whether or not the original Enterprise could beat the Battlestar Galactica. Sheesh. Of course it could!

[Riddick]

Originally posted by Ipecac
I understand that they believe in all this stuff and it's a fair subject for debate, but man, once you've dropped your religious beliefs, as I have, this starts to sound like two small kids talking about whether Star Wars is better than Star Trek.
Yes, you're so much more mature...and besides you think skeptically, therefore you own them. :p

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Denise
[star trek geek] "What happened to the original Klingons? I mean they are nothing like the Klingons from the original series!!!"[/star trek geek]
I liked the Klingons from Star Trek TNG, Picard rules!

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by Yahweh

I liked the Klingons from Star Trek TNG, Picard rules!

Maybe...

But it was Sisko who hauled off and hit Q.

[Marc]

Originally posted by Denise
[star trek geek] "What happened to the original Klingons? I mean they are nothing like the Klingons from the original series!!!"[/star trek geek]

They asked Worf about it. He said Klingons do not like to talk about that. (DS9 episode where they traveled back in time for The Trouble with Tribbles)

Sisko was my favorite captain. He was the most human, able to pal around with his son, joke with an old friend, and get very scary when dressing someone down or dealing with an enemy.

[Suezoled]

voting for Picard.

[Ipecac]

Gotta go with Sisko. DS9 rules!

[rachaella]

I liked Dr. Crusher.

[rachaella]

But Picard really pulled off that bald thing well. He'd look funny with hair.

[Rose]

Sisko as the BEST Captain. He looked out after his people, and blended diplomatic skills with military competence. Kirk is still the coolest Captain, as long as you weren't a red shirt on a landing party.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Rose
Sisko as the BEST Captain. He looked out after his people, and blended diplomatic skills with military competence. Kirk is still the coolest Captain, as long as you weren't a red shirt on a landing party. Uh huh. Best for running a "ship" that didn't ever go anywhere. :D

[whitefork]

Originally posted by rachaella
But Picard really pulled off that bald thing well. He'd look funny with hair. You need to see him as Sejanus in I, Claudius. Nice head of strawberry blond curls.

[rachaella]

Originally posted by Rose
Sisko as the BEST Captain. He looked out after his people, and blended diplomatic skills with military competence. Kirk is still the coolest Captain, as long as you weren't a red shirt on a landing party.

Sisko wasn't even a captain. He was a commander. Captains are the head of ships.

[wollery]

Originally posted by rachaella
Sisko wasn't even a captain. He was a commander. Captains are the head of ships. Wasn't he promoted to captain in one of the later series?

And he was certainly the commanding officer of the Defiant.

[Tony]

This thread title is..umm...interesting (to say the least)...:D ;)

[Ipecac]

Sisko started the series as a Commander. In the third season, they added the Defiant and Sisko was her commanding officer. Some time after that, he was promoted to Captain. So there!

[Rose]

Heck, how many episodes of TNG did the Enterprise actually do any exploring, as opposed to diplomatic missions, ferrying services, or scientific surveys of regions of space already under Federation control? Even without the addition of the Defiant, I think Sisko managed to more exploring than Picard. And did it better. Unlike Picard, Sisko recognised when force was a nessacary optionin dealing with other races.
And Sisko WAS a captain, at least by the end of the series. And Sisko gets bonus points for one other aspect of his job that the other ST Captains did not have to deal with. Namely, Sisko managed to deal with Dr. Bashir and the Ferengi on a daily basis. Kirk would have booted them out an airlock, Picard would have booted HIMSELF out of an airlock, and Janeway...well, I refuse to consider Voyager not part of Star Trek anyways.
And I suppose if we're going to keep talking along the vein, we should move to another topic and forum.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Is there any way we can nominate a thread for the most insane derailment?

[Globert]

Insane! LOL:D

[hammegk]

This thread reminds me of Hitler & the Third Reich.

Finito. :D

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by hammegk
This thread reminds me of Hitler & the Third Reich.

Finito. :D

Ah, but you are forgetting that intentionally bringing up Hitler in order to end a thread does not invoke Godwin's Law (http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html). See the last sentence of the link.

[hammegk]

Huh? You don't see the "to-me-obvious" link between Voight, starship captains, and fascism? :(


:D :D

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by hammegk
Huh? You don't see the "to-me-obvious" link between Voight, starship captains, and fascism? :(


:D :D

I see. Actually the federation has always struck me as rather socialist (no money and all that) so if you had said "This thread reminds me of Stalin & Communism" it would have been much clearer :D

[Bearguin]

Jeffery Sinclair.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
Is there any way we can nominate a thread for the most insane derailment?

Well, the topic wasn't that meaty to begin with. :)

[Flaherty]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Gotta go with Sisko. DS9 rules!

Yes! DS9 was vastly underrated. It was weak its first few years, but really was terrific when it hit its stride. For my money, it was the best of all the Star Trek series, including the original.

[Phrost]

Babylon 5 > Star Trek

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Flaherty
Yes! DS9 was vastly underrated. It was weak its first few years, but really was terrific when it hit its stride. For my money, it was the best of all the Star Trek series, including the original.

Agreed.

[billydkid]

Well, a movie almost never follows the book. Why should this one be any different?

[Blue Monk]

Wait a minute!

I've read this whole thread and I'm confused.

You mean to tell me that Star Trek was based on the Bible!?

I never knew that but, yeah, it all makes sense now.

Wow, you learn something everyday.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by Blue Monk
Wait a minute!

I've read this whole thread and I'm confused.

You mean to tell me that Star Trek was based on the Bible!?

I never knew that but, yeah, it all makes sense now.

Wow, you learn something everyday.

Well, Spock did die and was ressurected....



Maybe there is something to the theory after all...

[Blue Monk]

Good point.

Besides, it would make a nifty t-shirt.

"Spock died for your sins"