Why Do Kids Love this Movie?
I'm looking for "important" movies to watch with my 11-year-old son. I was totally surprised that kids rate AMFAS even more highly than any other age group. What gives?
shareIt's because kids haven't yet been infected by the evil notion of moral relativity.
They know that there is right, and there is wrong.
And what's right and good for King Henry doesn't equate to any kind of rightness for what he did to Thomas More.
I saw this when I was, I guess, 12 or 13.
When I was in college, when my philosophy professor asked me if I believed in moral relativism, I told him that I absolutely did, because I had lived by those principles during the sixties and seventies. And he told me, "Are you really? Do you believe that there are any circumstances under which it is acceptable to inflict cruelty upon another? Do you believe that there are any circumstances where you may betray the trust of an innocent? There may be mitigation, but the guilt would haunt you, I think."
And he was right, and I have done those things, and more, and they haunt me, haunt me, haunt me.
My kids are clean, because I taught them in an ethos of moral absolutes, and they listened.
§
Please excuse my ignorance but could you explain the meaning of 'moral relativism.' I've read your post a couple of times and I think I know what you mean but I haven't heard the term before and am unsure what it actually means. Sorry, I'm dim!
The King's good servant but God's first
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
I know that Wikipedia has some serious limitations as an informational tool, but it's pretty good for general background. If you do a google search for the term and add 'philosophical basis' you'll find numerous discussions of the topic ranging from simple to impossibly complex.
Basically, it's the idea that actions may be justified by a wide range of conditions, which include societal or cultural norms, individual need, that the end enables its means, and the concept of mitigating circumstances, which is nearly impossible to codify without a unified, guiding morality. It's closely related and fundamental to Jeremy Bentham's philosophical theory of Utilitarianism, which states that what is good is whatever benefits the greatest number of the population, meant to be an impartial and self-regulating system of ethical behavior, somewhat similar to Adam Smith's notions of free market economics. If it were possible to implement such a system on a global basis, it might work, because then there would be fair and equal treatment of every human being, but since neither position (the regard for ethics as essentially subjective and Bentham's 'greatest good for the greatest number) takes into account the reality of unregulated power, both ideas fall apart on any number of bases. For example, if the world were somehow required to act according to Utilitarian ideals, then it would not really be laissez faire and returns by default to an absolute moral standard. And neither takes into account the possibility of the tyranny of the masses, under which the American antebellum states were perfectly justified to maintain slavery, or the German Nazi state to systematically exterminate Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, or anyone else not deemed to be at the service of that state's greater good, or for the Turks to kill millions of Armenians in the early part of the twentieth century. And, even if the majority of a population does not enthusiastically support such actions, it's only really necessary that a majority acquiesces without questioning fundamental morality.
This is pretty much the way I explained it to my kids, as they were growing up...though I think that I used a lot of "If most the people around you thought it was a good idea to hit someone you didn't like with a brick, would you think that too?" It's a reductio ad absurdem argument, but it works and is perfectly appropriate. I think most parents have used that bit of simple logic when trying to guide their children away from bad behavior, which in itself indicates the validity of moral absolutes.
This is not to say that moral absolutism is not subject to the potential of terrible abuse...Sir (or Saint) Thomas More himself was guilty of that, responsible for prosecuting heretics to be burned at the stake, for which he apparently felt enormous personal satisfaction at having done the morally correct thing. However, closer examination should reveal that he had in fact violated a basic and absolute principle, which is the sanctity of thought and expression.
I doubt that you are dim, and I would suggest at least a casual examination of the 18th Century German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, especially regarding his writings on what he called 'The Categorical Imperative,' which continues to inform the basis of the rule of law in Western Civilization.
And I particularly like this quote, taken from the Wikipedia article:
Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Buddhist monk, wrote:
“By assigning value and spiritual ideals to private subjectivity, the materialistic world view, threatens to undermine any secure objective foundation for morality. The result is the widespread moral degeneration that we witness today. To counter this tendency, mere moral exhortation is insufficient. If morality is to function as an efficient guide to conduct, it cannot be propounded as a self-justifying scheme but must be embedded in a more comprehensive spiritual system which grounds morality in a transpersonal order. Religion must affirm, in the clearest terms, that morality and ethical values are not mere decorative frills of personal opinion, not subjective superstructure, but intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality.”
§ share
*gulp* Ok, thanks! Only kidding, I will read your post properly when I get a chance. Unfortunately my computer has died and this is my daughter's laptop which I can only have a brief use of. What I can say is that I wish our politicians had Thomas More's moral integrity. The current expenses claim scandal (in the UK) is shameful.
The King's good servant but God's first
No reason to *gulp*. [meant kindly]
Just read with careful commitment, and then form your own opinion, though I know you're already inclined toward that view.
And yes, the scandalous malfeasance of those in power has been rampant for at least the last thirty years, and their abuses have brought us to this current condition.
I continue to think that the world could be so good, if only people observed coherent and inherent moral standards, and played fair. Instead, right now, it is not, and things will get a lot worse before they get better.
What I'm telling you is that our American politicians, CEOs, and others in positions of wide responsibility are at critical risk, not only for questions of their competence but for their morality. And who would not say that this is not so?
Rothko....
You know it's evident to some of us that our "moral squint" has been blinded a bit. My question: why do you think it so? Is it because of religion? Is God dead to take a phrase from Nietzsche? I bring this up because this is an important and telling issue for societies today. If moral codes erode then we will swim with sharks and the seas will fill will blood.
God isn't dead, man just thinks he knows better than God and no longer needs Him. Unfortunately there are too many people like Richard Dawkins who believe science has all the answers, and too many people willing to read his books and be told that only the gullible believe in God.
Just my opinion for what it's worth.
The King's good servant but God's first
Your opinion, TudorLady, is worth a great deal.
shareThe really relevant question is, whose moral code, and more importantly, who writes it, and for what reasons? The executors of the Spanish Inquisition were presumably deeply pious men, who, for their own reasons, have violated what we know is true about from Christ, from his Sermon on the Mount, and those men committed the most heinous of cruelties and crimes, all in the name of their own self interest. Sin, in that respect, is like a snake eating its tail, a self-perpetuating system of its own justification. The moral code must be both fundamentally comprehensible and within that comprehension, and achieve a correct justification (in my mind, the Categorical Imperative) for it to function, not only individually but on a global and particular scale, where it must embrace not only our own respect among one another, but equally find those among the other living things on this earth, which is such a rare thing that we should not easily discard it into our ultimate demise. And, to make the specific universal, which is that our massive slaughter of other living species is deeply, deeply evil.
I don't think there are many blue green planets out there.
If there is a moral code written into the database of our universe, then Kant has codified it further than any other who has considered its consequences, of that I am certain. And if it's resolutely Christian, it isn't that I disregard Lao-Tzu, or Confucius, orZoroaster, or whichever MesoAmerican priest decided that human sacrifice, whether it takes the form of meek submission to death, or ritual torture priestal representatives of cruel Gods who demand cruelty just for rain to fall, which is a cruel and inhuman concept in and of itself, or any other ethical or spiritual application, but that each and every can be well evaluated in terms of the Categorical Imperative. It works, it's functional, and why not? It's just a more intensive elaboration of The Golden Rule.
While I think that there is a God, I suspect it isn't the kind you believe in, which is personal and much like a human. However that it, which inhabits all things, is nevertheless deeply embedded with the moral, the right thing to do is, again, something that shines within us, if only we will see it.
§ (Edited a lot...)
Yes, I believe in a God in whose image we are made. I also know that many terrible things have been done in the name of this God. I was born and brought up Catholic. As an adult I stopped practising my faith and through a friend became involved with a Pentecostal church. I became a member of this church and remained there for 12 years. During this time my son was born and at the age of 8 weeks was diagnosed with Cerebral Palsy. I was told that in all probability he would not walk and would certainly always have a degree of spasticity. He was also having seizures. As you can imagine we were devastated. Many prayers were said for him and one of the things I vividly remember from that time was when my Pastor and a priest friend came to the hospital and prayed together for him. (I live in Scotland, there is much emnity between Catholics and Protestants.) There was no immediate change in my son's condition but gradually all his symptoms left him. He stopped having seizures, the stiffness in his limbs relaxed and he walked at 13 months old. He is now a strapping 6ft 5in almost 17 year old.
I know that many people don't believe he was healed. The most common thing I hear is that the doctors got it wrong. That's fine, I can't force them to believe, but I was there. I struggled to hold this wee stiff baby that screamed almost constantly. I took him for his brain scans and heard the specialist say he had suffered a pre-natal stroke. I know God healed my son.
I am now back in the Catholic church. Only yesterday I heard on the news about yet another scandal involving Church-run children's homes and paedophile priests. It makes me feel sick and I wonder about the morality and simple human compassion that these priests (and nuns) were supposed to have for these vulnerable little ones in their care. Which makes me wonder also about accountability. St Thomas More wouldn't sign the oath because he knew he would one day answer to God. Where did that belief go? Is the fact that we've become so 'sophisticated' and lost our fear of God the reason for our 'moral blindness' or do we just choose to be blinkered?
Sorry for the long post, I got carried away.
Thank you cwente2 :)
The King's good servant but God's first
Rothko...
When you say "whose moral code", I think you're onto something. Sometimes I wonder if it's like the "flavor of the month" kind, you know? Perhaps we've moved away from some sort of universality of human morality in our modern age?
Modern times has certainly done something to our accessibility to the spiritual.
TudorLady...I am glad things turned out well for you and your child. You have every right to get "carried away". Personally as I get older I've noticed that
I am very interested in that "spiritual" side of our existence. I've been especially fascinated by Paul. The sheer belief that existed in him to preach, travel, bless, suffer and die amazes me. A great personality that makes one think intently about that "spiritual" side in humanity.
Paul is one of my heroes too. When I think of how he became a 'new creation' and turned away from his former life it encourages me to believe that we can all experience the 'Damascus Road' experience no matter how bad our lives have been or how lost and far away from God we feel we are. Even if we have made ourselves His enemy, as Paul says, nothing can ever separate us from the love of God. I have read in a few places that Paul may well have been manic-depressive (possibly the 'thorn' he talks about?) as someone who also suffers from this condition I find it very comforting to read Paul's letters and know that God not only used him in such a far-reaching way but was with him in every situation that Paul found himself in.
The King's good servant but God's first
One of God's primary meanings is moral duty, but the absence of God does not mean the absence of moral duty, either. The moral concept is embedded within the universe, and it's precepts do not change.
They are concisely enumerated in the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount, and anything else amounts to elaborate evasions.
But, I would add one more to those, which, though I do not mean to presume, should say: "Thou shalt observe these laws to both their letter and spirit, and never seek specious reasoning to deviate from them, nor seek their use to justify a crime in their name, for among the sins of humanity, nothing is worse than unexamined self-justification by the distortion of moral ends.
And that goes what my son said, too, on that mountaintop. If I provided the broad framework to Moses and hoped you would work it out for yourselves, my son spelled it out in the beatitudes. Everything else was just chrome, and he was showing off. I'll have a talk with him about it when I feel he's ready, a few million years from now.
And, I'm so sorry that I'm not as stern and concise as when I talked to Moses, but even I lose patience and get bored.
So sue me if you're dissatisfied."
And that's what I think God almighty would say, if he is, in fact, a Catholic, and not some other exotic fusion of something else, and if he is in fact male, and Genus Paterna.
Personally, I think that God simply must be something, who could never be someone, capable of comprehending the entire universe, which may exist multiply, perhaps (and I suspect) infinitely, and so may not be inclined to grant us any more inclination than we have already had, and certainly no less than an asteroid the size of Nebraska, whose lazy solar path might be scheduled to slam into us and end all intelligent life on the planet for a long, long foreseeable future, or even just exterminating it altogether. Ending all life, and it's just another afternoon on God's eternal desk.
Not that those, both intelligence and God, have been noticeably present for a long, long, time...I'll give Saint Joan a nice little margin, but won't admit later Saints whose good works do not match my standards.
Oh, yes, I have those standards. Bernadette must not only see God, she has to behave as God, or she doesn't qualify.
You see, the holy is what we do and not only what we believe.
§
Ok. I don't have your eloquence, would that I did, but I'm not entirely sure what you're saying you believe. Please bear with me. For example, 'Everything else was just chrome, and he was showing off.' Are we speaking of Jesus here? And if so what exactly was the 'chrome'? The crucifixion and resurrection? I don't think God needs to talk with him about that seeing as it was He who sent him - was him in fact. (That confused me in chatechism class!)
I'm sorry you feel God has been absent for a long time. I will admit, there have been times when I have wondered where He had got to, but, and forgive me if this sounds childish but I think we complicate things and tie ourselves up in knots in our search for God. A wise friend once said to me when I was going through yet another angst-ridden time trying to make sense of everything, 'Keep it simple. The bible says 'unless you become as a little child, you cannot see the kingdom of heaven.' Also, 'God chose the simple things of the world to confound the wise.' Sorry for quoting, I don't usually but I have experienced the truth of this. I have 4 children and when they were younger they didn't much enjoy church 'Boring!!' and I never used to think they were listening let alone taking anything in, but sometimes they would amaze me with the things they came out with maybe days later.
For myself, I can't imagine a world without God. It would make no sense. Ok who says it has to I know but to quote St Thomas More, 'What matters is that I believe it, or no, not that I believe it but that 'I' believe it.' (I trust I make myself obscure?)
'the holy is what we do and not only what we believe.' We agree.
The King's good servant but God's first
Yes, I feel that our comprehension of the universe ought to be a simple thing, and yes, I am often guilty of its unnecessary complication, and yet so many things that ought to be simply self-evident as instructions from God, are not.
Despite my deep worship of the Ten Commandments and The Eight Beatitudes, I do not believe that either are entirely free of contrary justifications, except perhaps the First Commandment, which Jesus clarified so beautifully by saying:
‘“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.’"
And it seems to me that the First Commandment leads inexorably to the Second, which strikes me as so often misinterpreted: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain," which, I believe, applies to the sins Thomas More committed when he zealously prosecuted heretics whose punishment would be at the stake and fire. I have said as much about such evil practice among the Aztecs, and I will certainly not admit it within strict Christianity, and this brings me back to Kant's Categorical Imperative as a Christian commandment, which is nothing more or less than a reasoned exegesis of the First Commandment.
And all this works very well, or should, for those of us on this fine blue-green planet, where life is, or should be, relatively simple and full of beauty, even considering natural disasters, up to and including (among the hurricanes and earthquakes and so forth) large powerful carnivores who may wish to either eat us or just bat and bite our bodies around like an interesting squeeze toy.
And so on to the 'Chrome.' I think that walking on water was chrome. I think that raising Lazarus from the dead was especially cruel chrome. And in deference to the recovery of your child, yes, I know that miracles can happen, and that they are even necessary, but that I do not believe that they rely on our personal supplication, or of any particular interest by by whatever Deity.
And thank you for the complement, but I don't think I'm eloquent but merely voluble. And I think you write beautifully well.
Myself, I long for love and light,
But must it come so cruel, and oh so bright?
--Leonard Cohen, 'Joan of Arc'
I thank you for this conversation, not to say that I wish to end it, but that it has helped clarify some things in my life. It leads me to believe that you do that for a lot of people.
§ share
I remember the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams being asked why the Anglican Church venerates St Thomas More. He replied that our characters are all made up of dark and light and in some individuals the light shines very brightly and we find ourselves attracted to that light.
I do not condone Thomas's treatment of heretics. I have studied (and continue to study) his life, and it seems a paradox that this wise, learned, gentle and compassionate man should act in so cruel a manner. Thomas was very afraid of the spread of heresy. He saw it as treason to God and the church. He spoke with many accused and tried to reason with them. If he saw that this was not going to work he determined that they should not 'infect' anyone else. His friend, Erasmus did not agree with the burning of people but Thomas's comment was that the heretics were 'well and worthily burned.' This to me represents a judge's grim approval of the well-deserved punishment of a criminal who has committed what More calls the worst of crimes - the crime of leading other souls to eternal perdition. "And for heretics as they be," says More, "the clergy doth denounce them. And as they be well worthy, the temporality doth burn them. And after the fire of Smithfield, hell doth receive them, where the wretches burn forever." I don't see this as hysteria or rejoicing on More's part, but rather a tone of fearsome warning and sombre satisfaction at finding justice done.
The pursuit of heretics continued after More's death, though usually for different reasons. The basic cause was still religious, but the charge now was refusing to accept Henry's supremacy over the church. Thomas Cromwell vigorously prosecuted those suspected of continuing to support the papacy and many suffered execution. The political procedures of the age were cruel and ruthless.
We in the 21st century look back at these times in horror. We often blame religious fanaticism, commenting that people were ignorant and superstitious. We know better now of course. Yet living here in Scotland we still see religious fanaticism, often under the guise of football rivalry where people are consumed with hatred for the 'other side.' People of no religious faith gleefully point the finger, "It's all the fault of religion, that's what's causing the hatred and bitter conflict!" No. It is the nature of man.
My mother is 79 years old. She left school at 14 and would be the first to admit that in many ways her education was inadequate. She has not had an easy life, my father died at 39 and she has been almost completely deaf since the age of 5. Yet she is one of the happiest people I have ever met. Why? She loves God and knows she is loved by him. She has such complete faith and has never been racked with doubt as I have. She lives the Gospel and would give her last to anyone in need. She is childlike (NOT simple) and an inspiration (she wouldn't like that but it's true!)
Ok as usual I've got carried away, apologies for that. Thomas More, my wee mum, all of us will (I believe) meet God face to face one day. He will look at us with such love because He is the only one who truly knows why we do the things we do, say the things we say and feel the way we feel.
I don't know about writing beautifully, sometimes I find it hard to stop!
The King's good servant but God's first
You know what I think lies at the back of both your posts is this aura of our human existence and how we navigate it through the lives we live and will live. We each all go our own solitary way towards the way the truth and the life. More had his journey and we have ours. We all strive for meaning in our lives. If not then what is left??
shareAnd with a great deal more concision than I have been capable in all my prolix ramblings.
Seriously, your thought is well taken, here.
§
"The political procedures of the age were cruel and ruthless."
Well said. However I don't think that has changed much, except that they are now more transparent. The social and cultural phenomenons of Hitler, Stalin, and any number or degrees of political despots are monstrous injustices and crimes against the Ten Commandments, the Eight Beatitudes, and most especially, the Categorical Imperative, which dictates (should one choose to adhere to it, as has every jurisprudence within Western European Civilization, while most of the rest of the planet ignores those sensible and humane norms, whom Christ himself delivered ), all engaged in their own flavor of atrocity. For example, it is no surprise that Communist China finds the spread of Christianity so threatening, while it poses no particular problem to the adjacent and (broadly) culturally shared background of other nations. (North Korea is the notable exception, since that society is consumed by the state mandated worship of Kim Il Jong. Whether there are people of conscience there who do not buy that is another question altogether, just as there were those in Germany during the 1930s and 40s who viewed Hitler and his gang of thugs as a preposterous moral insult.)
You see, it is generally fashionable, so street café or deep urban corner bar to view the concept of right and wrong as equitable and even agreeable terms, only slated on a scale that, between them, will indicate which choice satisfies the greatest number. And you know what? That's precisely the attitude that followed to the Great Financial Crisis of 2008, which will go down in history as one of the most preposterous shams ever indicted upon mankind.
However, and be that as it may, here's the hard point, the twisted, rusty, long and heavy but flange-edged cast iron point, the sharp, nasty and wicked point, and after that long windup, it's merely this:
It is only that we of conscience have to treat ourselves in the same way that we believe all others of conscience should respect and enjoy. Thus, some things can be characterized as bad, and others as good. I've taken great pains to dance around the simple and necessary Golden Rule, because while it is relevant and germane, it does not equate to quite the same standards as the Categorical Imperative, which, I believe, applies to nearly all ethical situations as an explicit rule, or in its implicit sense.
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
Note that this presumably excludes objects devoid of conscience, like asteroids blindly bumbling around in space, and who may slam into the earth without any intention whatsoever, or, for that matter, a virus that mutates into a pandemic super killer like AIDS or Ebola. Thus, while those who are fortunate enough to be sentient do indeed occupy a special place in the universe, I cannot believe that it starts and ends with Homo sapiens, and is a widely shared condition. This is not to say that a house cat or a dog should be expected to adhere to conscience, much less in Kant's evolved form, and yet I have known or heard of animals who have acted in no less than conscience. Witness the cat who went repeatedly into a burning building to save her kittens, who suffered grievous burn injury in that selfless act, or dogs, whose social conscience is so intense that they will even extend it to us. Still, it becomes a kind of inversely telescopic examination of Linnean taxonomy to say where conscience may begin and end, but I believe it extends much farther than we may suppose on the simple face of reality. That asteroid bumbling around the solar system is indeed imbued with intent, but of the kind we cannot comprehend precisely because of its fundamentally incomprehensible simplicity that can only be grasped by God.
Like you, I believe that there is intention in the universe...and yet I do not believe that it is special to the human race, but universal, encompassing all things, and unimaginably beyond what any temporal intelligence could ever conceive. We call it 'God,' and God it is, but our poor human attributes can only glimpse its majesty, and only then in those fleeting moments of divine inspiration.
The phrase, 'Mere Christianity' occurs to me, but I cannot remember whose book was so titled. Was it C.S. Lewis or Thomas Merton? At any rate, the concept as I have described it above is why I have remained non-denominational, though I have found both Roman Catholicism and Zen Buddhism attractive, in a sort of fusion...like a good martini.
Take care, and know that I respect your conscience and intelligence. Sometimes intelligence is conducted without conscience, and sometimes conscience without intelligence, but I believe you have both. I would like to guide you to the work of Thomas Cahill and the Trappist monk Thomas Merton. I think you would find both interesting reads. (Do an internet search on both.)
I think it was Cahill who said, in a Charlie Rose interview, that the basis of evil is cruelty, and if that is true, then its opposite must lie in what Christ taught us, that kindness is the basis of good. And that, I think, is what he meant when he said that the meek shall inherit the earth and that we should be as children. Your mother sounds as though she is an outstanding example of that, for as long as we can be kind, then we can do very little that is wrong.
Highest regards,
Mark.
§
It is C.S. Lewis, I have it although I haven't yet read it. I also have Thomas Merton's The Ascent to Truth which I borrowed from someone and neglected to return. I confess I found it too difficult for me. (You see I really am a simple soul!) I do like Lewis though, I enjoyed 'Surprised by Joy' and 'The Screwtape Letters.' I'm currently reading 'Finding Sanctuary - Monastic Steps for Everyday Life' by Abbot Christopher Jamison. I have a longing to find peace amid the confusion and struggle that modern life so often seems to bring. I have a friend who is a Cistercian monk and although contrary to popular opinion his life is not always easy, he has a calm, untroubled approach to things that I would love to possess. (He also has a wicked sense of humour which probably helps!)
My son (17) recently told me he doesn't want to be Catholic. He believes in God, talks to Him but sees himself as identifying with Protestant teachings rather than Catholic. If I had said that to my parents I think they would have had coronaries on the spot! I don't see it as that important. My son is mature, has thought about it and I'm happy that we can discuss it. (We have great theological discussions!)
Before I get carried away (again!) let me say, good 'talking' to you, and in the words of an Irish comedian who was on tv years ago,
'Goodnight and may your God go with you.'
God bless :)
The King's good servant but God's first
A very interesting discussion. Thank you both! If you haven't read it, I'd recommend "A Third Testament" by Malcomb Muggeridge (as well as other of his works since his conversion). Love to have your comments.
shareOne of divergent opinions that never descended into argument, but instead in expressions of mutual respect. A very rare thing, indeed, especially on an anonymous board where, less the normative constraint of eye to eye contact, one can say anything without any fear of consequence except harsh words and hurt feelings. But then, the topic itself seemed to steer in that direction, didn't it?
I feel a great deal of respect for TudorLady, for her even keel and tolerance for my own ramblings, and in trying to make sense of those, instructed me in a way I deeply appreciate.
However, I do regret not having responded sufficiently to you and deeveed, because your comments were both welcomed and appreciated.
In my own life, I find myself caught between two apparently uncompromising positions that refuse to approach a middle ground, that of mainstream Christianity, which seems to be dominated by an insistent desire to return to a simpler time (perhaps one characterized by feudalism and vassalage) and on the left, the hip and neo modern Utilitarians, who always say things like, "Whatever."
It is good to talk to Christians of reason and tolerance, like yourself, deeveed, and TudorLady. As I previously said, this has been helpful to me in working through some personal issues.
Thank you all, again.
§
Personally, I'd like to say that I've been rewarded with some interesting and thoughful "conversation" here from all of you on topics that interest me very much, i.e. morality, history, religion and ethics. heh heh I guess it's my Catholic background which is subsumed in me as a result of my upbringing. Latin is supposedly a dead language but I always hear its echoes in my brain. I can't escape it. And keep posting your opinions and thoughts...
sharei just kinda glanced through the posts but i'm surprised this one rates so highly.... it is one of my least favorite "Best Picture" winners. Right under The English Patient (the worst), The Greatest Show on Earth, An American in Paris, Gone With the Wind (yes, i said it and meant it), and The Deer Hunter. It was just such a bland movie... until the last 20 minutes or so.
shareBland? I did not find it bland at all. The pacing of the story was nice and the dialogue sharp.
share