Holy Ghost 101: Bernard, Godwin, Borat, Kinzie

[rgcraig]

Wow - - I think they have a point here:

"Other targets are not so fair, as when Borat interrupts a Pentecostal service, just as the sacred gift of tongues is descending on them. Truly this film is the sin against the Holy Ghost. It also reveals just how cowardly the film makers are. They would not have dared to film and ridicule Kazakh Muslims in prayer with their foreheads on the ground and their arses in the air, because it would have led to violence and even murder, not by the Kazakhs themselves, who are far from being fanatics, but by Arabs, Somalis, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, all willing to kill to avenge a slight to the honour of the Prophet. They would probably also have used Baron Cohen's Jewishness as an excuse for some anti-Semitic outrage. They are like that.

The Pentecostals by contrast are peaceable folk, many of them are even pacifists, a doctrine unique to Protestants and Hindus. Have you ever heard of a Muslim pacifist? Or come to that of a Roman Catholic or Greek or Russian Orthodox one? No, the cowardly film makers stick to soft targets. They would not have dared to interrupt a Roman Catholic service at the moment of the elevation of what people like them call the magic biscuit. The Roman Catholic church is a powerful corporation that can exercise great censorship (look what happened in Britain to the TV series Popetown. Twentieth Century Fox would never have been willing to stand up to all the boycotts and picketing that would have ensued. Hollywood has never escaped from the stranglehold of the heirs of the Catholic Legion of Decency. So the cowardly bas*** stick to the Pentecostals; they are a humble and powerless people whom it is safe to kick."

http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/...ves/001388.php

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by seekerman

My advice is never to rent it and watch it. You'll never get the wrestling scene completely out of your mind.

There's a wrassling scene? Borat takes on the WWE?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Wow - - I think they have a point here:

"Other targets are not so fair, as when Borat interrupts a Pentecostal service, just as the sacred gift of tongues is descending on them. Truly this film is the sin against the Holy Ghost. It also reveals just how cowardly the film makers are. They would not have dared to film and ridicule Kazakh Muslims in prayer with their foreheads on the ground and their arses in the air, because it would have led to violence and even murder, not by the Kazakhs themselves, who are far from being fanatics, but by Arabs, Somalis, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, all willing to kill to avenge a slight to the honour of the Prophet. They would probably also have used Baron Cohen's Jewishness as an excuse for some anti-Semitic outrage. They are like that.

The Pentecostals by contrast are peaceable folk, many of them are even pacifists, a doctrine unique to Protestants and Hindus. Have you ever heard of a Muslim pacifist? Or come to that of a Roman Catholic or Greek or Russian Orthodox one? No, the cowardly film makers stick to soft targets. They would not have dared to interrupt a Roman Catholic service at the moment of the elevation of what people like them call the magic biscuit. The Roman Catholic church is a powerful corporation that can exercise great censorship (look what happened in Britain to the TV series Popetown. Twentieth Century Fox would never have been willing to stand up to all the boycotts and picketing that would have ensued. Hollywood has never escaped from the stranglehold of the heirs of the Catholic Legion of Decency. So the cowardly bas*** stick to the Pentecostals; they are a humble and powerless people whom it is safe to kick."

http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/...ves/001388.php

I don't think ignorance can always be called blasphemous. If the film makers knew which group to target, the Pentecostals because they are humble people, in order to pull of their film, that doesn't mean they are cowardly. It just means they were smart in their carnality. And doesn't the part about being more humble and powerless (not in the sense of powerless with God) speak for why they didn't question Borat's motives, sincerely believing that God can do anything? I believe He can do anything, even if someone tries to scam me.

All it means, for me, is that Borat and the filmmakers are ignorant of the truth pertaining to God and have a bad impression of Christianity. I can see that they would, so did Saul.

I'm still giving them the benefit of the doubt - carnal and not, necessarily, blasphemous.

How many people have we been around that make fun of how someone worships? We've read about it on this forum. Same thing, IMO. Borat is copying what he has seen just like others, in church, have done. Is that also blasphemy?

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I don't think ignorance can always be called blasphemous. If the film makers knew which group to target, the Pentecostals because they are humble people, in order to pull of their film, that doesn't mean they are cowardly. It just means they were smart in their carnality. And doesn't the part about being more humble and powerless (not in the sense of powerless with God) speak for why they didn't question Borat's motives, sincerely believing that God can do anything? I believe He can do anything, even if someone tries to scam me.

All it means, for me, is that Borat and the filmmakers are ignorant of the truth pertaining to God and have a bad impression of Christianity. I can see that they would, so did Saul.

I'm still giving them the benefit of the doubt - carnal and not, necessarily, blasphemous.

How many people have we been around that make fun of how someone worships? We've read about it on this forum. Same thing, IMO. Borat is copying what he has seen just like others, in church, have done. Is that also blasphemy?

Guess it just depends on how you define blasphemy.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Guess it just depends on how you define blasphemy.

I agree. So, I think blasphemy is evil speaking, railing or vilification (impious toward God).

I just think that you can't be ignorant of what you are doing, you have to willing know you are against it. That is why I use Saul in this case. He believed so much in the Jewish faith, he hated the Christians.

Not so sure I would call Borat's actions blasphemy. Ignorance maybe, especially, since they are saying he is Jewish, who probably wouldn't even check to see if he were wrong about the Christian faith he came to film.

Saul wouldn't have stopped unless God had stopped him. And I think God only stopped him because he knew that, in his heart, he would give his very life for truth, which he did.

Hopefully, somewhere down the line, God will also get a hold of Borat. Maybe he will put out a better film. LOL!

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Wow - - I think they have a point here:

"Other targets are not so fair, as when Borat interrupts a Pentecostal service, just as the sacred gift of tongues is descending on them. Truly this film is the sin against the Holy Ghost. It also reveals just how cowardly the film makers are. They would not have dared to film and ridicule Kazakh Muslims in prayer with their foreheads on the ground and their arses in the air, because it would have led to violence and even murder, not by the Kazakhs themselves, who are far from being fanatics, but by Arabs, Somalis, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, all willing to kill to avenge a slight to the honour of the Prophet. They would probably also have used Baron Cohen's Jewishness as an excuse for some anti-Semitic outrage. They are like that.

The Pentecostals by contrast are peaceable folk, many of them are even pacifists, a doctrine unique to Protestants and Hindus. Have you ever heard of a Muslim pacifist? Or come to that of a Roman Catholic or Greek or Russian Orthodox one? No, the cowardly film makers stick to soft targets. They would not have dared to interrupt a Roman Catholic service at the moment of the elevation of what people like them call the magic biscuit. The Roman Catholic church is a powerful corporation that can exercise great censorship (look what happened in Britain to the TV series Popetown. Twentieth Century Fox would never have been willing to stand up to all the boycotts and picketing that would have ensued. Hollywood has never escaped from the stranglehold of the heirs of the Catholic Legion of Decency. So the cowardly bas*** stick to the Pentecostals; they are a humble and powerless people whom it is safe to kick."

http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/...ves/001388.php

Not blasphemy, but these are some great points.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I agree. So, I think blasphemy is evil speaking, railing or vilification (impious toward God).

I just think that you can't be ignorant of what you are doing, you have to willing know you are against it. That is why I use Saul in this case. He believed so much in the Jewish faith, he hated the Christians.

Not so sure I would call Borat's actions blasphemy. Ignorance maybe, especially, since they are saying he is Jewish, who probably wouldn't even check to see if he were wrong about the Christian faith he came to film.

Saul wouldn't have stopped unless God had stopped him. And I think God only stopped him because he knew that, in his heart, he would give his very life for truth, which he did.

Hopefully, somewhere down the line, God will also get a hold of Borat. Maybe he will put out a better film. LOL!

I think blasphemy is a "condition" of sorts - which if one continues to exist in they have no hope. the condition could also be called faithlessness or unbelief.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I think blasphemy is a "condition" of sorts - which if one continues to exist in they have no hope. the condition could also be called faithlessness or unbelief.

I agree. So, you are defining that as a reprobate?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I agree. So, you are defining that as a reprobate?

Don't you have to be a believer and then backslid before you can become reprobate?

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Don't you have to be a believer and then backslid before you can become reprobate?

When I was a child I remember a woman in the neighborhood saying that we children weren't anything but a pack of reprobates.