Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 32 of 32

Thread: Alexander the Gay

  1. #21
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Jet Moses[/i]@Nov 21 2004, 11:46 AM
    [b] Two of the greatest men of the 20th century were homosexuals. John Maynard Keynes and the other British guy who cracked the Nazi's enigma code. [/b][/quote]
    yeah and it's a shame they are burning in hell for eternity for their sins.

  2. #22
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,281
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti+Nov 21 2004, 12:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (bitonti &#064; Nov 21 2004, 12:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Jet Moses[/i]@Nov 21 2004, 11:46 AM
    [b] Two of the greatest men of the 20th century were homosexuals. John Maynard Keynes and the other British guy who cracked the Nazi&#39;s enigma code. [/b][/quote]
    yeah and it&#39;s a shame they are burning in hell for eternity for their sins. [/b][/quote]
    What makes you think that? God isnt a punisher, God is all forgiving.

    All you have to do is ask for it.

    [url=http://www.naturallist.com/alouette.htm]http://www.naturallist.com/alouette.htm[/url]

  3. #23
    Bitter
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    9,741
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti+Nov 21 2004, 11:11 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (bitonti @ Nov 21 2004, 11:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Jet Moses[/i]@Nov 21 2004, 11:46 AM
    [b] Two of the greatest men of the 20th century were homosexuals. John Maynard Keynes and the other British guy who cracked the Nazi&#39;s enigma code. [/b][/quote]
    yeah and it&#39;s a shame they are burning in hell for eternity for their sins. [/b][/quote]
    Wow&#33;&#33; There&#39;s this guy named Fred Phelps. ahhhh nevermind. :lol:

  4. #24
    [quote][i]Originally posted by R. Tyme[/i]@Nov 21 2004, 10:57 AM
    [b] I would be surprised if any Catholic doesn&#39;t know about the flogging Christ endured before the crucifixion. What I don&#39;t understand is all the significance put on Gibson&#39;s movie because he depicted the suffering in detail....why did anyone need to see it? Did anyone really think that what he went thru was a piece of cake? Just because someone didn&#39;t previously come along and dwell on it, build a movie on it...doesn&#39;t mean that Christians didn&#39;t imagine it as being horrific-- for whoever was crucified at that time. [/b][/quote]
    I personally have yet to meet a Catholic who saw that film who was previously aware of the suffering Christ endured at the Roman scruging

    That doesn&#39;t mean they aren&#39;t out there ... I&#39;m sure I am not the only one who knew the depth of the brutality beforehand ... but I haven&#39;t met one and nearly everyone I know is Catholic

    I wish I had a dime for every friend who inquired after seeing the film ... Dear God, was the Roman scurging really that brutal?

    As I said earlier, the Roman scurging ... the precise details ... was rarely discussed in my church ... so while I knew it involved some form of brutality, I had no clue as to the level of torture until I took it upon myself to research the scurging many years ago

    But why is that important to know for a Christian?

    Cause much of the faith revolves around the suffering Christ endured on our behalf

    The faith teaches that he so loved mankind that he was willing to suffer on our behalf ... even onto death

    The first part of that statement is often lost on believers ... the central theme is the crucifixion itself, as that of course should be the main theme, but in many ways it has overshadowed the suffering Christ endured prior to the crucifixion

    The faith teaches of the suffering for many reasons ... many lessons can be gleemed from his ordeal

    1. It is one thing to love someone enough to lay down your own life, but that love is taken to a whole new level {unfathomable to the human mind} when you are willing to accept the most brutal form of torture imaginable for those you love ... it further illustrates the depth of the love GOD feels towards mankind, which is the type of love that is so deep it is foreign to mankind ... it is a love that can only be borne in heaven ... cause again, the Bible teaches Jesus could have opted out at any point had he chosen to do so ... could have snapped his fingers and there would have been a whole host of angels at his side to smite the Roman legions and deliver him from all suffering ... but alas it was for this purpose Jesus was born into the world, and he willingly saw his mission through till it&#39;s conclusion ... in effect, he was born to suffer like no man has ever suffered, even onto death, and this was of his own choice

    2. The second lesson that is learned from understanding the level of suffering Christ endured {or actually the level of torture}, is to teach believers that it is no great sacrifice to have someone mock you, ridicule you, or think you foolish cause you profess a faith in a man who willingly endured such torture on your behalf ... that to reject him for fear of being mocked should make you feel ashamed, as he suffered so much more than that for you .... in fact, the faith teaches that you should expect to be despised by the world if you follow Christ, cause the world despised him long before it despised you ... only in many cases you are getting off cheap ... you need only worry about ridicule, while he has already done the heavy lifting on your behalf ... it is the shallow coward of a Christian who can grasp the suffering Christ endured, and yet lament that the world may think them a fool for professing their love for he who endured so heavy a price for them

    Have you ever wondered why, in this age of PC when the mere utterence of Christ automatically qualifies one for the tag of village idiot, I have never shrinked from publicly professing my faith when confronted?

    I am not a stupid man ... I know that makes me a fool in the eyes of the psudeo-intellectual, and no-one {including me} likes to be thought a fool ... but that is a small price to pay for one who suffered so greatly on my behalf, and it is only because I can begin to fathom the depth of the suffering that I am made to feel small each time I even entertain the thought of rejecting him as to win the approval of the world

    Christ said, if you believe in me, pick up your cross and follow me ... there is a cross to bear in following Christ, it is not a convenient faith and it was not meant to be convenient ... there is mocking and there is ridicule one will occasionally endure ... there is more than that, but these alone are a burden to a mans ego ... but knowing the suffering Jesus endured makes all of this seem trivial

    These are just two of the reasons it is important to see the suffering ... the visual is a powerful medium ... even knowing the depth of the suffering can only be enhanced by seeing it visually if it is depicted truthfully ... I knew about it beforehand, yet seeing it depicted on film was still a sobering experience

    But again, not to be lost in all of this, the suffering is a central theme of the faith ... THE BLOOD ... the blood of Jesus ... this is a central theme which the NT discusses time and time again ... the NT is ripe with talk of THE BLOOD ... and while I discussed a few reasons why it is important to know, I kept it on a level that is easily understood ... there are so many reasons, greater than the ones I expressed here, why it is vital to the faith to understand the suffering ... much of the faith itself revolves are THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB ... while this is not always essential to the main question of salvation, it is indeed essential to ones walk with Christ and having a deeper understanding of the GOD we serve

    So in conclusion, I applaud Mel Gibson for his willingness to pick up his cross ... to endure the hatred of the world on behalf of he who was hated long before him ... and all to enlighten the faithful as to the love Jesus expressed for mankind 2000 Years ago ... a love that is foreign to the human mind and even the human heart

    Mel Gibson is not a mealey mouth, shallow, feckless coward of a catholic ... he is the exception to the rule ... one who had much to lose in terms of the honor he was accorded in holloywood, yet sacrificed it all to make this film ... he was lampooned, lambasted, mocked, ridiculed, and called just about every name in the book ... but he didn&#39;t retreat and for that he has earned my respect and the repesct of every Christian who has ever been thought a fool for daring to profess his faith ... his film performed a valuable service to the faith, and that&#39;s why the world released the hounds of hell on this man

    And to think, had he simply depicted Jesus as a moral leper he would have been hailed as a genius in hollywood ... what could he possibly have been thinking? <_<

    That&#39;s why he has won my undying admiration ... it took a lot of guts to make that film ... he was already a weathly man ... most men, under those circumstances, would value their status more than money ... it is the nature of a mans ego ... but he chucked it all to make a reverant film about the GOD he serves, in spite of the howls of the elites ... and for that he has my undying respect

  5. #25
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Westchester County, NY
    Posts
    3,477
    GJ&H, I don&#39;t remember any time when following Christ or wearing a cross brought ridicule and I&#39;ve been around people of various beliefs thru the years, actually felt that some were a little intimidated when I wore a cross and others showed more respect....just my experience.

  6. #26
    [quote][i]Originally posted by R. Tyme[/i]@Nov 21 2004, 03:05 PM
    [b] GJ&H, I don&#39;t remember any time when following Christ or wearing a cross brought ridicule and I&#39;ve been around people of various beliefs thru the years, actually felt that some were a little intimidated when I wore a cross and others showed more respect....just my experience. [/b][/quote]
    Awwww, that was adorable

    You&#39;re doing good, RT ... just be on the lookout for those elites who despise our faith ... and if any of them try to bully you, just let me know and I&#39;ll give them all a beating

    The Guys I most identify with in the scriptures are the David&#39;s and the Samson&#39;s ... the ones who will sling a rock or clip you with the jawbone of an ass if you mess with my brethren :D

  7. #27
    All this arguing over a movie none of us have seen yet.
    Got a pass to see a sneek preview of it tonight from a movie reviewer friend of mine. I&#39;ll tell you how it is. I&#39;m betting the homosexual aspect of it is a very minor part of the epic, and much to do about nothing.
    Not a big Collin Ferrell fan here, (I thought phone booth seemed and hour longer than it really was) so I&#39;m not going in with high expectations hoping I&#39;ll be pleasently surprised.

  8. #28
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    GJ&H - Oliver Stone isn&#39;t making this up. True or not, the notion of Alexander having had homosexual tendencies is a subject of legitimate debate within the academic historical community. As others have mentioned, it wasn&#39;t exactly a novelty at the timer or in that region, or in the military...especially when soldiers would be "on the road" for a long time. They definitely had women and mistresses, and raped and pillaged, etc.

    It&#39;s not the exact period, but an old Greek saying about Julius Caeser was that he was "a husband to all the wives and a wife to all the husbands." He had a voracious sexual appetite, and was not discriminatory. Similar things have been said about Alexander....

  9. #29
    Whoa whoa whoa....Lets take a step back. To say that A the Great wasnt a homosexual is not entirely true. There have been numerous references in historical annals that point to a life long love between A the Great and his childhood friend Hephaestion.

    For more on this...[url=http://wso.williams.edu/~junterek/sex.htm]CLICK THIS LINK&#33;[/url]

    LL

  10. #30
    OK, I saw it. I took a friend of mine who is a moderate democrat. Before it started I told him what had been said about it and we both agreed it was probably anti-Oliver Stone comments. About an hour into the movie I leaned over and said "Looks like the right wing was right on target about this." He responded "Apparently so."
    The whole movie was aweful. I will be posting a more complete warning in the main football room.

  11. #31
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    It isn&#39;t such a great movie anyway-


    &#39;Alexander&#39;: A Crying Shame
    Oliver Stone&#39;s Historical Epic Never Has a Fighting Chance

    By Stephen Hunter
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Wednesday, November 24, 2004; Page C01

    If you played a word-association game with "Alexander the Great," you&#39;d probably come up with "conqueror," "king," "warrior," "legend," "despot," "wastrel" or "killer." Unfortunately, Oliver Stone has chosen to build his epic of the Macedonian military genius around a word highly unlikely to make the list: "crybaby."

    In Stone&#39;s view, this is a highly neurotic young man whose emotions, far from being repressed or disciplined as one would expect of a great soldier of the 4th century B.C., are worn on his sleeve, except, of course, that he doesn&#39;t have sleeves, the shirt still being two millennia down the road. So he wears them on his wrist -- and it&#39;s a limp one.


    That&#39;s the weirdest aspect of the extremely weird, if absurdly expensive, movie. Stone gives himself much credit of "telling the truth" about Alexander&#39;s bisexuality as if it&#39;s some progressive badge of honor, but at the same time he can&#39;t get away from the cruelest, least imaginative stereotyping: His Alexander, as expressed through the weepy histrionics of Colin Farrell, is more like a desperate housewife than a soldier. He&#39;s always crying, his voice trembles, his eyes fill with tears. He&#39;s much less interesting, except as a basket case, than Richard Burton&#39;s Alexander of far less enlightened times -- 1956 -- in Robert Rossen&#39;s "Alexander the Great." Burton got Alexander&#39;s dissipation, but also his martial spirit; this was, after all, one of the great light-cavalry commanders of all time and a general who fought by leading his troops, sword in hand, not directing them from some safe hill. But in this one you think: Teri Hatcher could kick this twerp&#39;s butt.

    In many ways the movie feels 50 years old already. It offers the standard 1950s melodramatic theory of Alexander&#39;s sexual orientation: the scheming, sexualized, domineering mother, and the distant, uncaring father. So much for today&#39;s theories of genetic predetermination. Yet at the same time, it fails to account for what was remarkable about Alexander, rather than what was not.

    His bisexuality, after all, is fairly commonplace in the world of this movie, while his will to conquer, and his skill in actually bringing it off, are not. But we never see what drives him. He never projects much in the way of ambition or vision; his fixation is always emotional, and the occasional attempts to match his motives to his accomplishments don&#39;t resonate. Equally, we never sense his animal magnetism -- Farrell showed more on Letterman on Monday night than he does in three hours of world conquest -- or his leader&#39;s charisma. He seems to motivate by pouting or holding his breath.

    The movie lacks any convincing ideas about Alexander. Stone advances but one, the notion that Alexander was an early multiculturalist, who wanted to "unify" the globe. He seems not to recognize this as a standard agitprop of the totalitarian mind-set, always repulsive, but more so here in a movie that glosses over the boy-king&#39;s frequent massacres. Conquerors always want "unity," Stalin a unity of Russia without kulaks, Hitler a Europe without Jews, Mao a China without deviationists and wreckers. All of these boys loved to wax lyrical about unity while they were breaking human eggs in the millions, and so it was with Alexander, who wanted world unity without Persians, Egyptians, Sumerians, Turks and Indians.

    It has the same biopic failings as any MGM product of the mid-&#39;30s, in that it rushes from high point to high point, it synopsizes (he fought dozens of battles; it dramatizes only two) and it whitewashes truth (Alexander&#39;s ruinous retreat from India gets about four seconds). The mechanism of the plot is trite: Ptolemy, one of A-team&#39;s leading generals, now grown august and stentorian as only Anthony Hopkins can project august stentorianism, recalls the days of Alex as he dictates his memoirs. Yak yak yak, blah blah blah. Hopkins&#39;s Ptolemy is a wordy old geezer, and his prose style, as crafted by Stone himself and co-writers Christopher Kyle and Laeta Kalogridis, has that kind of purple glaze Hollywood has always used to signify "in olden times." Other trite old-timey signifiers include too much Maybelline eyeliner (and I&#39;m talking about the guys&#33;), too many subtitles in a font that might be called Greco-Roman 36-point Bodoni, with V&#39;s for U&#39;s, and thunderous bad battle music that seems to have been composed only for trumpet and trombone.

    As a director of performance, Stone is hopeless. For one thing, Farrell so overacts with the wah-wah-wahs gushing that none of the other young Greek and Macedonian generals makes an impression. Since all these young men are stunningly handsome, in shaggy hair and cool clothes, it&#39;s sort of like hanging out with a rock band. Musicians, however, don&#39;t have to have personalities, while characters do.

    Alexander&#39;s great love was said to be Hephaistion, who is played in the film by Jared Leto, but unless you know Jared Leto by face, even late in the movie you&#39;ll have no idea which one he was. I thought he was this other guy, equally handsome, equally vapid, equally unmemorable, whom Alexander prongs with a spear in a drunken rage late in the movie. But that was some other guy.

    Then comes the moment when we Meet the Parents. Brother, talk about Christmas with the cranks&#33; Dad -- the Macedonian king Philip, from whom Alexander inherited the tiny empire he was to build into a gigantic one -- is played by Val Kilmer in hearty barbarian mode. He seems to have wandered in from a remake of "The Vikings," shooting in the next Moroccan village down the coastline. Loved the one-eyed thing, which appears to be a Stone fetish. The movie is full to brimming with one-eyed men, which demonstrates two things: The Greek battle helmets had eye slots, and there was extra money in the makeup budget for putty.

    Then there&#39;s Angelina Jolie as Mom. Really, words fail me here. But let&#39;s try: Give this young woman the hands-down award for best impression of Bela Lugosi while hampered by a 38-inch bust line. Though everyone else in the picture speaks in some variation of a British accent, poor Jolie has been given the Transylvanian throat-sucker&#39;s throaty, sibilant vowels, as well as a wardrobe of snakes. She represents the spirit of kitsch that fills the movie, and with all her crazed posturing and slinking, it&#39;s more of a silent movie performance than one from the sound era. Theda Bara, call your agent.

    And finally, the battles. Hollywood should realize that these big tiff things aren&#39;t nearly as impressive as they once were, particularly in the aftermath of three years of Iron Age combat apotheosized in the great "Lord of the Rings" pictures; when you&#39;ve seen Orcs and hobbits fighting for the future of the world, it&#39;s a little hard to get excited about Persians and Greeks fighting over someone&#39;s imperial hubris 2,300 years ago. To be fair, the film does a pretty good job of explaining and dramatizing the tactics of Gaugamela (thought to be near Mosul, Iraq, today), where the clever Alexander, with 40,000 men, outthought and outfought Darius III&#39;s 200,000, including a daring cavalry strike (which Alexander himself led) that drove Darius from the field.

    But there&#39;s nothing singular here. When you see what the Chinese are doing with action (in the upcoming "House of Flying Daggers") and even what younger and more inventive American directors are doing, these fights seem very much a part of the rest of the movie. It&#39;s the same-old, same-old of charging into battle from half a century ago.

    Even amplified by CGI, which can multiply a thousand extras into 40,000, nothing in the war-making feels unique. We don&#39;t learn anything new about this kind of fighting and the imagery -- bigger in scale but not bigger in vision from the past -- feels stale. The one fresh image, that of Alexander on horseback rearing at an enemy pasha on elephantback, has been diluted of its power by overexposure on television ads. Like every other second of more than 10,000 seconds in "Alexander," it doesn&#39;t engage in the least.

    Alexander (173 minutes, at area theaters) is rated R for battle violence and sexual scenes and themes.

  12. #32
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,281
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Nov 20 2004, 11:04 PM
    [b] the facts of the time speak for themselves - in my home homosexuality is [b]commonplace[/b] - [/b][/quote]
    There is no official pledge to the Canadian flag; however, there are no laws or statutes which prevent an association or an individual from adopting a form which will suit the purposes.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us