It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
P.S- We are not allowed to use Justine Boober's name around here. For shame :D
So what youre saying is that there is no place in heaven for Bond or indeed someone like me who think heaven should be lots of shagging, drinking and good food? The picture you paint sounds like just going to church and who would want to do that for eternity - even believers?!
Anyway this is irrelevant to the question I posed and which you have singularly failed to answer namely: how do you reconcile your beliefs being in direct contradiction with everything that makes Bond cool and his lifestyle aspirational?
No offence to your Grandad thelivingroyale (not so bothered about the religious) but I've seen someone else mention this 'it's only fantasy' comment.
Can someone explain the difference between the bible and Bond except that Fleming and EON are upfront about making it all up from the start?
Seems to me the only advantage the bible has over Bond, Star Wars and Harry Potter is the passage of time. Who's to say in 2000 years people won't regard these as credible to believe as actually having happened? God knows (no pun intended - its just a figure of speech) there are enough stupid American tourists wandering around London who think Sherlock Holmes was a real person and thats after only 100 years.
It's terrifying how many people are happy to accept something as fact just because their parents and an ancient manuscript tells them it is so.
To this day, Bible literalists insist that it is acceptable to murder based on what King James had inserted to provide him with justification. Never mind that the primary commandment says not to. These insertions are not the "word of God", they are the word of a madman.
The King James Bible is actually simply his way of translating into English what was formerly in Greek and Hebrew and other languages besides English. He didn't add anything to the Bible, but instead only translated it to make it readable for those who read in English, this being the time when God's Word was spreading into more places than just the Middle East. Also, The King James version is not the only version we use, it's just one of many. You've got that, The New International Version, New American Standard Version, and lots of others. They all contain the same books and messages, but in slightly different wordings based on age and location, etc.
The Old Testament in particular is full of ancient magic if you know where to look for it. Many verses and various Psalms have the power to heal and guess what, they work no matter what version of the Divine you choose to worship. Which well proves Christian theology isn't the only way to reach the Divine.
I have to wonder what your fundamentalist sect thinks of the Dead Sea Scrolls, written by disciples of Jesus not quoted in the Bible. And if, despite overwhelming evidence, your sect insists dinosaurs never existed at all.
P.S- None of this is personal, just an educational debate in my view.
Then I really hope for your sake that you're right old boy. Heaven by your description sounds terribly dreary so I'm quite happy to go to hell if it means you won't have missed out on all the fun this wonderful life has to offer in vain by adhering to all this rubbish. Just hope that when the worms are eating your carcass in the ground you aren't kicking yourself for all the sex, drugs and rock n roll you missed out on.
Anyway I have the get out of jail free card that God loves all his children and is all forgiving so if I end up at the pearly gates looking sheepish I'll just hold my hands up and say 'you got me. Didn't believe a word' and he'll still let me in.
Taking just DN (the oldest therefore the most conservative and most lacking in 'graphic' sex and violence) as an example however; are you really telling me you fast forward the following:
Strangways and his secretary being cruelly murdered.
Bond indulging in gambling and smoking.
Bond shagging a bird he only met an hour ago (what a shameless harlot).
Bond slapping Mr Jones about.
Mr Jones taking his own life.
Bond drinking a vodka martini.
The photographer (has she got a name by the way? Miss Freelance?) smashing the bulb in Quarrels face.
Bond bludgeoning a tarantula to death (it's one of Gods creatures after all).
Bond shagging another bird he only met an hour ago (another trollope who will burn for eternity).
Bond coldly executing an unarmed man (one of the highlights of the series incidentally in case you've never seen it).
A woman wearing a bikini.
Quarrel getting burnt alive.
Bond getting a kicking from Dr No's men.
Bond snapping a blokes neck from behind and nicking his radiation suit.
Bond pushing a disabled man into a nuclear reactor.
Bond shagging a bird he met a day ago.
If you force yourself to skip all that I really fail to see what you are getting out of watching a Bond film.
"I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints. Cause sinners have much more fun".
Despite the connotations often attached to someone like myself, I am very responsible when I "go to work", very devout in my belief in the Divine Ones, and not the evil character King James portrays. I would never wish or facilitate harm on another person on any level unless I have extreme provocation that would make any rational human being stand up and defend themselves. I'm better than the mob, who need to know where you live and what kind of car you drive. I only need your name. However, I am very old time in my view. You slap my face, I'm not turning the other cheek, I'll turn it over to the Divine and justice will be done.
You're right about all the stuff in Bond movies that could be deemed "unacceptable" by the fundamentalist and ultra-conservative bunch. Especially all the sex and gratuitous violence. I don't get what they get out of this either, nor do I get why they can't watch and find a way to reconcile it as not a threat to their faith by doing so. The true faithful don't have to fast forward and edit, those unsure put it down as "the work of the Devil", who people like myself don't believe in or are influenced by any more than we believe in Christianity despite their insistence to the contrary. It's quite a peculiar and nonsensical view from my chair. I can enjoy several movies such as "Ben-Hur", "King Of Kings", the "Ten Commandments" and it doesn't threaten what I believe at all. It's entertainment and doesn't make me question my faith in the slightest.
I think I like you, Mr. Wizard. Post of the month.
I do not skip any of the violence or fights, I never even said that. If you had bothered to pay any attention to my post you would have seen that I said nothing about skipping the violence because it has no problem with me. In fact I know plenty of church of Christ Christians who watch violent movies, and they're faithful believers and good people too. It's the sex and language that has to be watched, like I said before. And as far as Honey's bikini, I can see the same thing if I go to a waterpark or even the YMCA pool. That doesn't bother me.
@00Beast, I'm curious - why is bad language something that you need to skip over but killing a man in cold blood (which violates a commandment) isn't? I would think that the swearing - as long as someone doesn't take the Lord's name in vain - would be the acceptable of the two issues. I don't recall anything in the bible about swearing in general, just the Lord's name. But killing is specifically prohibited in the 10 Commandments.
Religious people that abstain sex, alcohol and other "sins" just to make sure they go somewhere after life baffle me. But it's their choice, and I respect it.. I just wish more people would enjoy the life we live now, for it's the only life we know for sure exists. Live it.
I suppose he was just bought up to believe it. It's only real life violence he's actually against though. He likes violent films. He smokes and drinks so much I'm suprised he's not had a heart attack, and if you believe half his stories he's had sex before marrige. But he still goes to church most days a week and prays alot. It's kind of wierd to think that in the future Bond could be thought of as a real person.
Haha, legend.
Everything that comes from the bible should be considered suspicious and inflammatory simply because of the excuses it has offered believers to act against people that have different believes.
I do not mind peoples faith in a god, have a rather large dislike against organised religion or church in any form.
^:)^ =D>
@ TLR- Hahaha, I definitely had more fun than humans should be allowed to!
Now you see I fail to comprehend how you manage to delineate between Sylvia kissing Bond (sorry but whatever your scripture may say what is seen on screen is not sex - that's all in your dirty mind) and Honey in the bikini and girls on a beach which, when I see them, engender similar dirty thoughts. It strikes me, like most religious practices to be largely illogical and pretty arbitrarily based on ones personal tastes and how far you want to take it.
Couldn't agree more Disco.
Well apart from respecting their beliefs. Of course everyone is entitled to hold whatever lunatic delusions they want to. I for example started harbouring the insane notion last week that England could beat Italy, then Germany and then Spain on their path to glory. The difference is that my deranged assertions are not given preferential treatement at all levels of government and in the law and it is this privileged and seemingly unquestionable status that antagonises me most about religion.
Precisely.
I don't necessarily agree with that. The whole point of this thread was to indeed understand - for example the "why" behind deeply religious people liking Bond and the films. If we get to the "why" instead of the "what" then we have a better appreciation for each other's views, even if we don't agree with them.
For example, up-thread I asked someone why he had to mute swearing in a Bond film but he was fine with the violence in the films. I really am curious to know why one is bad and the other is acceptable, especially when murder is against a commandment and swearing seems to be fine as long as you don't take the Lord's name in vain. If I can understand the reason *why* someone makes this distinction then we can have a respectful conversation of differing views. That was the purpose of this thread, not a forum for people to say "You're wrong!" "No, YOU'RE wrong!".
A friend of mine studied comparative religion in university and he has had several extremely interesting conversations regarding religion and faith that don't devolve into bickering. But as he said, you have to get in the "why", not just the "what".
A fair point. I've been trying to avoid this thread (reading AND posting) mostly because I've gotten very frustrated seeing a good many posts that struck me as insensitive and persuaded me that this thread wasn't necessarily conducive to legitimate discussion. That said, to the hopeful end of answering your query about language, I can certainly see where it might not be considered appropriate/permissible by Christianity. Profanity (which, interestingly, I learned a while ago meant "in front of/outside the church (i.e., the building)," presumably for this reason) does have origin(s), meaning(s), and intent(s) that are/can be harsh, lewd, spiteful, etc., and for that reason don't necessarily jibe with the same morals that promote love and purity. So, while I don't know of any explicit forbiddance of that kind of language (and I've looked into it a bit in the past), I think it's the notion that the connotations and associations of it aren't consistent with other moral guidelines of Christianity; in a sense, the same reason it's often not socially acceptable, just in a moral light. Did I explain that well enough as to make sense (assuming I explained it right at all)?
(For the record, my view seems to be that, while it's not expressly forbidden in the Commandments, it's most likely not something that's perfectly alright to be doing (and I mean that on an objectively moral basis, not as in "alright by the Church"). As a Lutheran, I admit I use the "not a Commandment" idea without even thinking about it much as a bit of an excuse to swear...a lot (though, as you say, not taking God's name in vain).)
By the way, @thelordflasheart, I commend you for seeking productive discussion out of a genuine curiosity. This sort of topic is so easy to have one's feathers ruffled over no matter what your beliefs, but I find myself not really put off by your post(s), I suspect, because you've not been insulting or derogatory. Good on you (and thank you) for being civil. (This sentiment, of course, is extended to anyone else who's done the same.)
For 2000 years religion has gone utterly unquestioned and it's about time it faced scrutiny. Did anyone care for the sensibilities of others when Christianity (although let me state I am not singling out Christianity; I'm equally against all religions - it's just Christianity is the easiest point of reference for us all) was being promulgated across the globe? Missionaries went to all the far flung corners of the world to presumptuously tell people that the sun or tree or Sankara stones or whatever they believed was a god was a load of crap and that Christ was the truth without a care in the world about hurting their feelings.
It's understandable as 2000 years ago the idea of Christianity made more sense than worshipping the sun. However we have moved on now and just as we have evolved to prove that the sun is a mere ball of gas and fire which is far from unique and will one day die out so rendering early worship of the sun infantile in our modern eyes, so we have reached the same tipping point with religion as a whole.
The universe and all life therein can be traced as a process of physics, chemistry biology, evolution and a large dose of chaos. The only thing science has been unable to uncover (and is unlikely ever to so - well certainly in my lifetime) is what caused the initial trigger for all this. Science calls it the big bang but you might as well call it God - it's just semantics. But the fact is after the big bang he has done nothing to intervene and we have been on our own.
Human history is defined by progress through our enquiring minds always striving to know more. At the point in time religion caught hold we hadn't evolved far enough to dispute its credibility but now we have. The very worst thing about religion is it's desire not to question but meekly take things as read. If humanity had always had that attitude we would still be living in caves.
It only seems like I'm hounding you 00Beast because you are the only one coming on here trying to defend religious views - which is to your credit it and you have my respect for that if nothing else.
I'm trying to understand your logic as to me it makes no sense whatsoever. You say that the Bond/Sylvia scene is fine as nothing is seen but nothing is seen in any Bond film (and god knows I've looked!)
I find Sylvia in the pajama top far more erotic than say Jinx grinding away on top of Brozza which is the closest you get to sex in Bond. Or are you talking about when and Bond are lying on the floor? On bluray if you pause it at the right moment there's definitely sone nipple there (come on I'm not the only one who's done that even if 00Beast hasn't).
In any event I don't think what you actually see or dont see is particularly pertinent - you've already said the Sylvia/Bond scene made you think of 'it' so isn't the damage already done? My understanding of religious doctrine is that once the thought is in your head the sin has been committed?
Not hounding you old chap but just confused as to, if you are against so many aspects of Bond that you have to self censor the films as you are watching them, why it is you don't just watch Disney instead?
Welcome to the thread and thanks for the "commend-ment" ;-)
I appreciate your explanation of the problems with swearing. Your explanation is well done; I totally understand your point. If I could beg your indulgence further - what's your take on people who fast-forward or mute the swearing but then watch the violence? Why do you think one is bad and the other is acceptable?
Also, if swearing is bad because of the intent behind it (which I can understand) then how do you think someone with that view becomes a Bond fan? The character is all about bad intents - coveting his "neighbor's" wife, having lots of pre-marital sex, seeking vengence, killing people that he could have just subdued. I would think that those things would require fast-forwarding as well but then you'd be left with a very short film...so why bother watching a Bond film at all, much less become a "fan" of the films and character?
Sorry, I had to post that !
But I have to say, I am baffled as to why a 15 years old kid like 00Beast would fast-forward the swearing bits, but have no problem with sex and violence. Surely sex and violence is more dangerous for a young kid than swearing ? A kid won't die if he tells someone to 'p*ss off'... but unprotected sexual relations and violence, imo, is much more dangerous than swearing.
I really would like to know why 00Beast is muting the swearing, but is watching sexual and violent scenes... 00Beast, do you cover your ears everytime a kid swears on the playground ? if a kid beats up another kid, but didn't swear at him, is that more ok for you than a kid swearing at someone else ?
So it's ' make war, no love', basically. And to be honest, that's what I understand many American Christians promote.
Honestly there isn't much of a difference between Christians (of all sorts) and Muslims (of all sorts) or Jews (again, of all sorts). The basic system is, they devide the world in two camps: Us and them (them beeing everybody else. They don't use the word ' them' , but words like ' pagans' or ' sinners'). Then you claim yours is the religion of ' peace' but you have to defend yourself against everybody else. Not that anybody by definition is attacking you, they might just question you and your beliefs, and that's bad enough. For then ' they try to take you away from the righteous path'. It's all psychology and it has worked for over 6000 years (2000 for Christians, about 1400 for the Muslims, but it's the Jews that started it!).
All I can ask everybody who believes in any religion, is to think for themselves. Question every statement put upon you. If you agree, fine. If you don't, start wondering why.
And for those who think Atheists have no morals, you're utterly wrong. We're forced to have them more then you do. Why? Easy! We believe you only live once. So if I kill my neighbour, the police will come along and I'll be put away for life. No redemption there, it's all over then. Every single mis-step will cost me time on this earth. No god to give me a second chance, no heaven to make good for the time i lost on earth.
Oh, but to lighten up the whole conversation, here's the Devil's take on the whole thing:
To be fair I didn't realise 00Beast was only 15 so I guess I'll cut him some slack. At that age you're still a product of you parents religious indoctrination so with a bit of luck he'll grow out of it when he gets out in the world and is allowed to think for himself.