Also writting on coffee and an empty stomach...
And yes Becky, it certainly has a numbing effect. :)
I appreciate your eluciadation on presuppositions, assumptions, inherent biases, and the like. And, I also particularly appreciate your argument that we do not need to be in one of two camps -- either for or against the film. You are correct: this is a false dichotomy. I am guilty of allowing myself to be polarized to the strongly for the film camp. I think this happens when we have debates over things. I want to defend the film against these protests (because I don't think they are valid and I think the film is excellent) and thus, I focus on defense of the film... this ends up polarizing us into two camps. In the end you are right, it is a false dichotomy. You don't need to be "for" or "against" the film. Certainly we can all have mixed reviews.
I guess, though, I am asking for a simply argument from Andy then. I'm not trying to escape assumptions that we all bring to the table, but rather, I am asking him to defend a claim he implicitly makes. He writes:
My chief objection to the film lies in its pedestrian use of the image.
And... I don't think the film does have a pedestrian use of the image.
Can't that be a simple disagreement? I want him to defend that the film actually DOES use the image in such a way. His statement (from which he then builds his entire case) begs the question.
Example: If Jimmy makes the statement, "My chief objection to Bj lies in his punching me in the face..." before we see the rest of his argument can't we ask, "Wait a minute... did Bj punch Jimmy in the face?"
In the same manner, then, when Andy writes, "My chief objection to the film lies in its pedestrian use of the image." I simply am asking, "Wait a minute... does the film have a pedestrian use of the image?"
Since he makes the claim, the burden is on him to defend it.
I claim that it does not. Instead, I have found the Passion delivers a strong artistic expression that conveys some of the truths of the Christian faith that surround the crucifixion.
Blessings,
BJ
PS
I don't own an iPod... am I a dork or just a ludite?
I appreciate your eluciadation on presuppositions, assumptions, inherent biases, and the like. And, I also particularly appreciate your argument that we do not need to be in one of two camps -- either for or against the film. You are correct: this is a false dichotomy. I am guilty of allowing myself to be polarized to the strongly for the film camp. I think this happens when we have debates over things. I want to defend the film against these protests (because I don't think they are valid and I think the film is excellent) and thus, I focus on defense of the film... this ends up polarizing us into two camps. In the end you are right, it is a false dichotomy. You don't need to be "for" or "against" the film. Certainly we can all have mixed reviews.
I guess, though, I am asking for a simply argument from Andy then. I'm not trying to escape assumptions that we all bring to the table, but rather, I am asking him to defend a claim he implicitly makes. He writes:
My chief objection to the film lies in its pedestrian use of the image.
And... I don't think the film does have a pedestrian use of the image.
Can't that be a simple disagreement? I want him to defend that the film actually DOES use the image in such a way. His statement (from which he then builds his entire case) begs the question.
Example: If Jimmy makes the statement, "My chief objection to Bj lies in his punching me in the face..." before we see the rest of his argument can't we ask, "Wait a minute... did Bj punch Jimmy in the face?"
In the same manner, then, when Andy writes, "My chief objection to the film lies in its pedestrian use of the image." I simply am asking, "Wait a minute... does the film have a pedestrian use of the image?"
Since he makes the claim, the burden is on him to defend it.
I claim that it does not. Instead, I have found the Passion delivers a strong artistic expression that conveys some of the truths of the Christian faith that surround the crucifixion.
Blessings,
BJ
PS
I don't own an iPod... am I a dork or just a ludite?
posted by BJS at
12:34:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home