Judge orders further distribution of Expelled stopped

[Washington]

The movie tries to be pro God, apparently. A movie is known by it's enemies.

Kind of like Christianity, huh! It fails the test of reasonableness.

 

[dad]

Kind of like Christianity, huh! It fails the test of reasonableness.

Depends on who gives the test! If it was, say, a cross dresser, or witch, or other biased source, why, the only way to pass, is to fail!

 

[dad]

So the IDiots are lying when they say they ID is not religious and the designer is not necessarily God. Thanks.

Now, now. Name calling is so small. The ID folks naturally put their perceived best foot forward, in trying to omit God from the godly conclusions they made. I hope they learned that compromise with the enemy is no way to go! I say they should put it in your face.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Now, now. Name calling is so small. The ID folks naturally put their perceived best foot forward, in trying to omit God from the godly conclusions they made. I hope they learned that compromise with the enemy is no way to go! I say they should put it in your face.

So they are lying when they claim ID is science and not religion.

 

[dad]

So they are lying when they claim ID is science and not religion.

I think they may have been doing what they thought needed to be done. Minimizing the God connection, but it was beneath the surface. Otherwise who designed what?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I think they may have been doing what they thought needed to be done. Minimizing the God connection, but it was beneath the surface. Otherwise who designed what?

In other words they were lying for God.

 

[Tomk80]

I think they may have been doing what they thought needed to be done. Minimizing the God connection, but it was beneath the surface.

In other words, lying.

 

[Tomk80]

This zeal against an attempted pro God film smacks of more than coincidence. <snip deranged rant

It's not a coincidence, but it also has very little to do with God. Yoko Ono has a habit of suing anybody who wants to use Lennon's songs without permission. She also, as far as I could gather, is not someone who easily gives permission to use the songs.

So it is not a coincidence that the makers of the movie would be sued over this. That has nothing to do with God, but everything with Yoko Ono zealously opposing use of Lennon's songs without her permission. You can think of that whatever you want.

 

[flatworm]

It's not a coincidence, but it also has very little to do with God. Yoko Ono has a habit of suing anybody who wants to use Lennon's songs without permission. She also, as far as I could gather, is not someone who easily gives permission to use the songs.

Since Yoko Ono's attitude towards copyright infringement is not exactly a well-kept secret, and the producers properly licensed all the other music in the movie, I don't think it's a coincidence either. I'm sure the producers would rather be able to say their film was "suppressed" than admit it faded away from lack of interest.

 

[Tomk80]

Since Yoko Ono's attitude towards copyright infringement is not exactly a well-kept secret, and the producers properly licensed all the other music in the movie, I don't think it's a coincidence either. I'm sure the producers would rather be able to say their film was "suppressed" than admit it faded away from lack of interest.

I don't agree there was a lack of interest. I think the claim of success is not overrated when looking at box office sales. Whichever way you look at it, it did very well for something purporting to be a documentary.

It very likely failed to make a profit, but I have to agree with Randy Olsen here in thinking that this probably does not matter to premise media.

 

[Assyrian]

The movie tries to be pro God, apparently. A movie is known by it's enemies.

Rom 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil... How can a film which relies on slander be pro God? Paul lists 'slanderers' with 'enemies of God'. Where does that put people who object to the slander and lies?

 

[flatworm]

I don't agree there was a lack of interest. I think the claim of success is not overrated when looking at box office sales. Whichever way you look at it, it did very well for something purporting to be a documentary.

For documentaries in general, perhaps. For the most heavily promoted documentary in history, however, and one with a built-in audience, I'd say its performance was dreadful.

 

[thaumaturgy]

So they are lying when they claim ID is science and not religion.

I figure stealing his tune is like stealing a pagan temple, like the early Christians di, and using it for something better.

You have got to love a religious group who has such a strangely relativistic morality! Anyone who thinks theft, for any reason, is allowable when it suits their purposes, and who thinks that hiding one's true motives in a debate, should not be trusted in a society of rules.

Thankfully this isn't how most Christians are. Most Christians that I've met are fine, upstanding people that I would trust as responsible members of society.

This country sure would be better of if atheists were in the majority. At least most of us can be trusted to some extent.

 

[thaumaturgy]

In case anyone thought that ID was actually anything but a cover for some creationists, just look at the "evolution" of a key passage in a creationist textbook in evidence for the Kitzmiller v. Dover case:

Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34: &#8220;Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.&#8221;

Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33: &#8220;Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.&#8221;

Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38: &#8220;Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.&#8221;

Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40: &#8220;Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.&#8221;

Of Pandas and People (1987, &#8220;intelligent design&#8221; version), p. 3-41: &#8220;Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.&#8221; (SOURCE)

Sometimes I wish I had a religion that would allow me to hide my agenda in order to get my way.

Sadly, I'm an atheist and I try to live by the Golden Rule.

 

[Morcova]

This zeal against an attempted pro God film smacks of more than coincidence. I read a bit of an interview, if it is authentic, I would say it might help explain things? &quot;Yoko: I'm a witch! Because I'm a witch! The thing is, when I wrote and produced that song in 1974, it was such an incredibly controversial song that everyone said, &quot;Don't put it out.&quot; And it was shelved, you know. And it's interesting that now I can use that title. I can call a whole CD Yes, I'm a Witch. I think that all women are witches, in the sense that a witch is a magical being. And a wizard, which is a male version of a witch, is kind of revered, and people respect wizards. But a witch, my god, we have to burn them. It's the male chauvinistic society that we're living in for the longest time, 3,000 years or whatever. And so I just wanted to point out the fact that men and women are magical beings. We are very blessed that way, so I'm just bringing that out. Don't be scared of witches, because we are good witches, and you should appreciate our magical power.&quot; http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/40791-interview-yoko-ono ??? Could it be that simple? If so, a revolution might be in order, pronto. Get back, yoko, to where you belong. Then I notice this. Is this wrong? "Yoko Ono, John Lennon’s widow, tore pages from a Bible and passed them into a crowd in downtown New York." http://www.catholicleague.org/annualreport.php?year=1996&id=27

Allow me to translate this from dadspeak.

"Christians should be allowed to break the law."

 

[DrunkenWrestler]

"Expelled" isn't playing anywhere in St. Louis. I haven't seen it yet. I feel lol-deprived.

 

[dad]

Rom 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil... How can a film which relies on slander be pro God? Paul lists 'slanderers' with 'enemies of God'. Where does that put people who object to the slander and lies?

The film is slander? How is that?

 

[DeathMagus]

"Expelled" isn't playing anywhere in St. Louis. I haven't seen it yet. I feel lol-deprived.

Have you seen "Jesus Camp?" You can find it on Youtube in 9 parts - some of it's hilarious, and some's downright scary.

 

[dad]

Allow me to translate this from dadspeak.

&quot;Christians should be allowed to break the law.&quot;

Well, no. We try to keep the wicked, silly little things where possible. Unless, of course some law says not to tell people about Jesus. Trash like that we gleefully disobey, with relish, and pride. Now, when some over zealous believer breaks some little law somewhere, and the witches, pagans, and devil's crowd are all over them gnashing on them for the infraction, I say the greater bad is the enemies of God, with their little excuse. Jesus was charged not with goodness, by the devil's crowd, but some false charge. That is almost always the way the enemy attacks believers. Accuser of the saints. 'Oh, look, she broke some little bylaw, crucify her..and, gee, aren't the gnashing wolves cute, let's let them shut down the prayer in schools, movies we don't like, and anything else they like.'

 

[dad]

.. Sometimes I wish I had a religion that would allow me to hide my agenda in order to get my way.

Are you truly that far gone you don't see that that is all you do have?