300

[Peterdiago]

(continued)

To advocate for a variation of the fundamental option theory in such a case as this specific one is heresy

Is it? Which one, pray tell? Or is this your personal opinion again?

To clarify, I do not disagree with the vast number of points you are making - rather I disagree with the conclusion that you have drawn regarding what this movie constitutes.

As you haven’t seen it, I tend to think that your comments automatically carry little weight.

The point I would make is that you seem fixated on the issue of sex, constantly making sweeping claims about the effects of witnessing sex which are SIMPLY NOT BORNE OUT by my personal experience.

This means one of three things;

i) You are simply telling untruths. I do not believe this is the case.

ii) My case is so unique and those I have encountered are so odd that my entire circle of friends and myself must be regarded as an aberation.

iii) Your beliefs are flawed and are based on something else.

I certainly grant that to watch the vast majority of Hollywood movies with nudity and sex in would be immoral - because that sex is against the commands of God and is shown as good and / or without negative consequence. 300 is, quite simply, different.

You have not mentioned once any other aspect which might make a movie objectionable - for example, Troy, which is less violent, has less overt sex, but shows adulterers prospering. This is despite my mentioning it. I can only conclude that you have some sort of hang-up about sex.

if we take blasphemy to be a gross irreverence towards something or someone held as sacred or invioble, then yes for you to even offer a ticket to such a movie to the Blessed Virgin

Only in so far as we agree with the rest of your argument that watching the movie is, in fact, inherently sinful.

as is your desire to watch others have “good sex” in the context of a good movie.

Excuse me? Where the Devil did you get that from? I have no desire to watch others have good sex in the context of a good movie, any more than I desire to see David Wenham in a posing pouch. I consider that both of those elements to be essential parts of telling the tale that the story told in order to be true to the artistic form that the story took.

That’s it - don’t try to sneak in though a very duplicitous method the suggestion that I am somehow wanting to watch people have sex for the sake of watching people have sex. If I wanted to do that, I would not waste my time going to see 300 - I would buy a porn movie.

But I don’t, so I don’t. What I do is watch a movie that people say is very good, I think is very good, and actually made me think, “Yeah, this is why the West is about a million times better than the East and why Christianity is always superior to Islam.”

 

[child_of_God85]

A few things.

First, I’m not necessarily saying that self-indulgence is always a bad thing. My typing on this computer, is not necessary, my going to a movie is not necessary, but this does not make them bad, they are licit. One may even view something sinful, such as fornication, if one’s duty requires it, so long as one takes no pleasure in seeing the act. An example of this may be a police officer who must arrest a exhibitionist couple. However, one may not watch others have sexual relations for a reason that is not proportionately grave. This is the context in which I was using “self indulgence”. This reasoning is consonant with traditional orthodox Catholic moral teaching, such as Fr. Herebert Jone’s Moral Theology which has been a standard work for about 75 years.

As far as a citation for the sinfulness of watching others have sex, I again site traditional orthodox Catholic moral teaching. As I said before, a married Catholic couple licitly engaged in marital relations has a moral obligation to immediately cease in the event they are “walked in on” even though there be a certain danger of “spilling the seed”, and regardless of the non-pornographic nature of the act. However the idea that one may licitly watch others engage in sex is ludicrous in light of such teaching. Sexual intercourse portrayed is not a valid subject for art, regardless of if it is intended to be pornographic or not. Showing a nude and showing a couple in coitius are not the same.

Finally are you aware that the traditional and orthodox teaching of the Church is that any willful sin against purity is a mortal sin? Knowing that the sexual apetite, especially in our culture, is one of the hardest to control, why would anyone willingly and knowingly place themselves in a situation that is so greviously dangerous to one’s eternal salvation? To watch people having sex, even if it’s “good sex” is something that is sexually stimulating. To give into that stimulus is mortally sinful according to the teaching of the Church. In the act of contrition we pray, “I firmly resolve to sin no more and to AVOID THE NEAR OCCASION OF SIN.” Watching other people have sex, even if it weren’t sinful, constitutes a near occassion of sin for 99.99% of humanity.

To advocate for a variation of the fundamental option theory in such a case as this specific one is heresy, and if we take blasphemy to be a gross irreverence towards something or someone held as sacred or invioble, then yes for you to even offer a ticket to such a movie to the Blessed Virgin, as is your desire to watch others have “good sex” in the context of a good movie.

I hate to be rude or anything, but I think you need to stop passing judgement on everything. I saw the movie and many others that had some sex in it. I didn’t sin in watching these movies (and I just dare anyone to say I did). Like someone else said, if your going into a movie that has sexual scenes in it with the intent of being turned on by them, then thats a sin. If your going in strictly to watch a movie, then no, I don’t think it’s a sin.
There are many good Catholic actos and actresses that have been in sex scenes and I don’t think they were sinning. It’s like saying that the people who used to pose nude for paintings were sinning. People are so ashamed of the naked body anymore, they’ve turned it into something perverse. The naked body is a beautiful thing, it’s how God intended us until the fall of man happened.
Some of your talk sounds more protostant that catholic.

 

[Peterdiago]

God bless you, Child_of_God85! God bless you right in the face!

Thanks very much - I thought I was sort of fighting my corner alone here!

Your post is wonderful - I wish this forum had kudos or karma or something as I would give you loads.

I didn’t sin in watching these movies (and I just dare anyone to say I did).

Don’t look now, but I think Tac has been saying that for some time . . . .

Some of your talk sounds more protostant that catholic.

Ouch! Burn again!

Seriously people, Tac only implied I was stupid - he never insulted anyone that badly!

(I am, of course, being sarcastic - there are worse things to be called than a Protestant)

 

[punisherthunder]

I started this thread in which I recommended a movie. I anticipated that people would chime in with their two cents.

I did not expect for it to turn into a witch hunt for what “we” are supposed to see and what “we” aren’t supposed to see.

 

[Peterdiago]

I did not expect for it to turn into a witch hunt for what “we” are supposed to see and what “we” aren’t supposed to see.

I am very sorry for any part I may have played in fostering an atmosphere of a witch hunt, it was not my intention.

 

[Mirdath]

That simply isn’t true - and shows the limitation of your knowledge. Satanists are not athiests and certainly believe in spirits and supernatural powers.

Ever hear of Anton LaVey?

Other than the fact that Ahura Mazda = Satan. But beyond that, they are totally different

Sure, one religion’s ultimate force for good is the same as another’s ultimate force for evil… I see the light! Er… no.

 

[Peterdiago]

Ever hear of Anton LaVey?

Of course - but how is this relevant? Your statement was a blanket one - if I can produce a single Satanist who is NOT an athiest, I am right and you are wrong.

Sure, one religion’s ultimate force for good is the same as another’s ultimate force for evil… I see the light! Er… no.

Let’s put it this way - if you are not worshipping God and are worshipping something else, you are ultimately worshipping Satan. It’s that simple - that’s the teaching of the Catholic Church.

You can sit there are say that the “good” gods of various pagan pantheons are just different aspects of God, but it’s a simple lie that Satan would like you to believe.

 

[Mirdath]

Of course - but how is this relevant? Your statement was a blanket one - if I can produce a single Satanist who is NOT an athiest, I am right and you are wrong.

Did you read the next line of what I wrote or did your knee jerk a little too fast? There are some people who actually worship the Christian devil, I know, but capital-S Satanism generally refers to the Church of Satan established by LaVey. They’re atheists.

Let’s put it this way - if you are not worshipping God and are worshipping something else, you are ultimately worshipping Satan. It’s that simple - that’s the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Last I checked the Church was getting into ecumenism and saying that other religions can contain parts of the truth, no?

 

[Peterdiago]

Did you read the next line of what I wrote or did your knee jerk a little too fast? There are some people who actually worship the Christian devil, I know, but capital-S Satanism generally refers to the Church of Satan established by LaVey. They’re atheists.

Generally refers to is NOT the same as the statement you made. You MUST learn to temper your enthusiasm with some cold, hard facts.

And by what basis do you say that it “generally” refers to that? It does not - there are many groups of Satanists out there, and LaVey’s group are invariably described as “LaVey Satanists” or something of the sort.

Regardless, you admit above that there are some people who are Satanists who worship the Devil and consider him a deity. This means that your previous statement that Satanists are athiests is wrong.

You can try to backtrack and say that you meant to say “LaVey Satanists”, or meant “generally” - but that is not what you said, nor what you implied. You made a flat, blanket statement which I have just proved wrong by your own words.

Last I checked the Church was getting into ecumenism and saying that other religions can contain parts of the truth, no?

While other religions can contain parts of the truth (such as teaching things such as the natural law or versions of the golden rule) only Catholic Christianity teaches the whole truth. And unless a religion specifically worships the God of Abraham, Jacob and Isaac, it’s either worshipping nothing or a demon.

Bottom line, right there. Paganism is Satanism - a Church Father said that, and no-one has recinded it.

 

[punisherthunder]

I’m not mad or blaming anyone. If you like the movie say so. If you don’t like it, then say it sucked. Just a simple movie conversation …

 

[Mirdath]

I’m not mad or blaming anyone. If you like the movie say so. If you don’t like it, then say it sucked. Just a simple movie conversation …

Haven’t seen it, if/when I do I’ll say

This guy’s a lost cause, I’m going to stay away until I have something to add on the movie. Sorry for feeding the troll

 

[Verita]

I normal like historical movies as I was a history major in college. I love Gladiator and even liked Sin City (another movie shot in the comic book style) But this is a movie that I will not own nor will I ever see it again. The only good thing in it is the soundtrack!

I don’t understand how you can “like” Sin City, a movie whose story exists for nothing other than the opportunity to display horrifically violent and perverted sexual scenes, and yet condemn a movie which is depicting an actual historical event because it has violence and sex. That just doesn’t make sense to me.

I did not like Sin City, but I’m looking forward to 300. I’m going to try to see it this weekend.

 

[Wisdom]

Its pretty obvious in this movie when the characters are about to engage in sex especially the husband and wife scene and the orgy, I simply walked out and wen to the restroom. Uhmm there’s a novel idea people. The only thing I caught off guard was the rape scene which was implied and not graphic. But I wouldn’t write off an entire movie that had many good western messages of virture, honor, country and freedom because of a couple of scenes I would simply fast forward on the DVD or make a rest room trip for the orgy scene which was probably the only over the top scene and you can tell when its going to happne people I took one look at the defromed guy and some women and said I am out of here for a couple minutes. Hey they were some sex scenes in Schindler’s list shoudl we have trash the entier movie because of that? Each person has a different level of toleration for such things but for those who can tollerate things or those who will see such a movie and attempt to skip the graphic scenes (looking away or going to the restroom is ok people) we should not be looked down upon because we see a Schindler’s list or 300 or Gladiator etc.
Pope John Paul II saw Schinlder’s list and he praised the movie desptie some graphic scenes.

 

[CNCIBC9]

(continued)

RELIGION

Historically, the Spartans were a pantheistic people. There is a single reference to “Zeus” (chief of the gods) in the narrative from a Spartan. All other references to religions which are pantheistic are very negative and say that it is an outdated, old-fashioned, mystical piece of claptrap.

However, there are two references to God in the singular - which I found surprising. I took note of them at the time, but cannot remember both. One is when David Wenham (a Spartan) looses an eye and says “The Lord saw fit to give me a spare” - WAAAA???

So, we have evil priests of outdated religions who rape pretty girls and are bribed by gold and the promise of more pretty girls. We have a group of invaders who follow loony religions (as opposed to the Greeks, who are democratic, decent, civilized, humane - although clearly religious) who also do vile things with deformed girls and hate women in general.

This, in my mind, is a positive comment for monotheism.

“SUPPORT THE TROOPS!”

A minor point this - when the Queen addresses the Council, she does not argue that they need to send troops to defend the homeland, but rather that to not send more troops leaves the other troops out their - and their families - high and dry.

THE PERSIANS

As people will be aware, Persia is modern-day Iran. The Iranians very often refer to themselves as Persians. While the Persians in the movie do not look like Moslems, I believe they are intended to represent radical Islam.

Now, let us look at the vague plot of the movie;

The Persians make threats against the Greeks. They show distain for women and not only make threats, but actually bring the crowns and heads of dead kings as a physical sign of this.

The Spartans say that the Athenians (whom they respect not as warriors, but philosophers) have already rejected the offer. And then make war.

The law of Greece (a loose alliance of states) says “No fighting!”

Sparta gets around this because of a kick-donkey, devil-may-care kind of warrior chief and his attitude of “guy’s gotta do what a guy’s gotta do”. He speaks often of “freedom” and fighting to defend “civilization” against the darkness of mysticism and tyranny.

The Council (a collection of lawmakers who seem to have some sort of control over the King, although he has some sort of power of them, and clearly have power to impeach or imprison him) is controlled by a cowardly, traitorous peacemaker who is in the pay of the enemy. They say “No fighting!”

The King and his brave 300 fight and die. Even when allies desert them. Even when they are betrayed. Even when they know it will be pointless. They fight for freedom against tyranny.

The evil of the traitor is exposed and the Council says “Go to war!” David Wenham tries manfully (and almost succeeds) to keep a smirk off his face as he delivers a speech about “a better world will arise because of our sacrifice, a world better than we can imagine.”

This WHOLE movie is a movie about the following things;

i) General Western conservative principles (which have been espoused by Christianity) are good and better than mystical tyranny.

ii) Freedom is preferable to life

iii) The civilization of the world is Western

iv) Legislative bodies are corrupt, evil and the single man doing the right thing is a good person.

v) Sex is for married couples, not casual fornication.

vi) Sometimes you have to break the laws of countries to defend the countries that those laws are made by.

Ultimately? This is one of the most conservative, Right-wing, pro-War on Terror movies I have ever seen. It is a masterpiece of the art, it is wonderfully constructed to smuggle both theology and politics. I think it is superb and I wish I had written it.

Seriously, everyone who calls themselves a Christian needs to see it. Does it mean we should go glass Tehran? No. Does it mean that civilization is western and that we owe our modern world to 300 guys in posing pouches and cloaks?

Absolutely - say a prayer tonight for those brave three hundred men. Yes, they were violent brutes who had never heard of Christ - but I hope God can find a place in Heaven for them.

Without them, we wouldn’t have the West.

I agree with everything you have said. It makes sense too as Frank Miller (artist and writer of the original graphic novel) is very conservative. Kind of refreshing in Hollywood these days,.

 

[beckers]

I don’t understand how you can “like” Sin City, a movie whose story exists for nothing other than the opportunity to display horrifically violent and perverted sexual scenes, and yet condemn a movie which is depicting an actual historical event because it has violence and sex. That just doesn’t make sense to me.

I did not like Sin City, but I’m looking forward to 300. I’m going to try to see it this weekend.

I liked sin City for the way it was shot and it had a unique comic book feel. You knew the story line was completely fake and that none of those people were real. To this day Elijah woods character freaks me out! I think the blood and gory in that one is shown but it is not the main storeline. The nudity and the blood are secondary to the plot story. But I do not like the sex scene as much as i don’t like them in 300 and I would not own Sin City just as much as i would not own 300. But i would see Sin city again if some friends wanted to watch it, I just wouldn’t watch it on my own or buy it.

I wouldn’t have minded 300 so much if they had stuck to the story. My man problem is there was no reason to show another women have basically sex with another women. They could have shown it once and i would have bought the artisic license idea but oh no they kept panning back to it again and again AND then showing the women trying to arouse the deformed man. it was disjusting and that one scene did borderline on porn. I had heard that there were was some nudity and was prepared for it but i didn’t think that the director did a good job with that scene.

 

[Milliardo]

I wouldn’t have minded 300 so much if they had stuck to the story. My man problem is there was no reason to show another women have basically sex with another women. They could have shown it once and i would have bought the artisic license idea but oh no they kept panning back to it again and again AND then showing the women trying to arouse the deformed man. it was disjusting and that one scene did borderline on porn. I had heard that there were was some nudity and was prepared for it but i didn’t think that the director did a good job with that scene.

For the record, it wasn’t graphic and its intention, as mentioned here, is to show the depravity of Xerxes as opposed to the nobility of Leonidas and his men.

 

[Durendin]

I see the current regime in Tehran is strongly encouraging governments in the Middle-East to ban the film?

That alone is a reason to go and see it!

 

[Verita]

My understanding from reviews I have read on a different messageboard, is that they way the movie is set up is that the story of the battle is being told by the lone Spartan survivor. Thus the embellishment can be explained. Of course a storyteller is going to make the bad guys out to be vicious and depraved and probably far worse than they actually were and he is going to make the exploits of his heroes larger than life. He isn’t telling accurate history, that’s not the point. The point is to immortalize the Spartans.

Anyway, still hoping to see it this weekend.

 

[dexxy]

I felt quite disturbed after watching 300

I took a day to think about it and this is what I came up with:

Glorification of Violence: This really what this movie is all about. Half naked men slicing eachother to pieces in a variety of ways; blood, gore abound. Now I’ve not been one to shy away from violent movies in the past, but this movie sets a new standard for violence and brutatlity. I’d say that somewhere behind the scenes there was a a homosexual with a huge unsatisfied lust directing the whole thing.

Pointless: There was no point… guess that’s the point… see glorification of violence. I would have slapped the king on the side of the head and yelled ‘its time to go now’… lol they march off to war and all get killed and we moviegoers learn nothing more than how to better prepare a shishkebob…

Sexuality: I certainly didn’t pick up any pointers on how to relate to my wife or women around me. A good question was posed though, and it does involve situational ethics: If you view a sexual scence in a movie, is it moral if you don’t get aroused by the depiction? Is the portrayal of rape ever moral? Are the actors obligated?

Childen: The brutatlity towards children to me is the worst part of the movie. Their treatment of childen bring the Spartans down to at least the same level as the Persians if not lower. I picture Jesus gathering small children around him; I see the Spartans dehumanising and robbing the children of their young lives. Quite a contrast, what good is there here?

I was very close to walking out of the movie and not from a moral high-ground perspective. The experience was a net-negative, I wasted a few hours of my life watching it. I’d suggest that if you want to watch a better movie that holds some meaning in it and holds to a level of brutatily that comes close to 300 go get Flyboys, about the lafayette escadrill in WW1.

just my opinion

 

[Adonis33]

My wife and I saw 300 a couple of days ago.

We really enjoyed it.