The Sound of Freedom

[JudgeRightly]

Let's hope you never find yourself in need of forgiveness and mercy as it is abundantly clear you are unwilling to offer it

Says who? You?

When did you become so familiar with my personality that you could make such statements?

Aren't you being judgemental right now? Hypocrite!

and, being without sin,

I don't ever remember claiming to be without sin...

@Right Divider, did I ever claim to be without sin, to make @fzappa13 say something like this?

are not in need of it in your own estimation if your offering is any indication.

I find what Jesus said to be relevant here:

Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, ‘I repent,’ you shall forgive him.”

Bible Gateway passage: Luke 17:3-4 - New King James Version

Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, ‘I repent,’ you shall forgive him.”

www.biblegateway.com

Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord. Are you the Lord?

Nope.

But the government was appointed by the Lord, and is a minister to execute wrath upon the wicked, and does not bear the SWORD in vain.

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.

Bible Gateway passage: Romans 13:1, Romans 13:2, Romans 13:3, Romans 13:4, Romans 13:5 - New King James Version

Submit to Government - Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

www.biblegateway.com

To me the whole question is something of a quandary. On the one hand we are called to seek righteousness and on the other we are called to be merciful by the same Word. How do we reconcile these two directives? Indeed, much of the contention between those that believe the Bible revolves around what appears to be contradictions in said Word. I would suggest that these apparent contradictions are just that ... they appear to be contradictions as a result of our limited ability to understand them and in this crucible we eventually learn what it is we incarnated in order to learn.

:think: Hmmmmm....

"they appear to be contradictions as a result of our limited ability to understand them"

"To me the whole question is something of a quandary. On the one hand we are called to seek righteousness and on the other we are called to be merciful by the same Word. How do we reconcile these two directives?"

:think:

I wonder if, just maybe, the reason you see it as a quandary is due to your limited ability to understand the Bible... And I don't mean that you are incapable, but rather that you have limited yourself from being able to understand it by training your mind to accept apparent contradictions, instead of searching them out and trying to understand them.

Let me see if I can give you a hint...

Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, for example, was directed at Israel, and was personal instruction in nature, and it has absolutely nothing to do with anyone today, other than what we can glean from it in a secondary manner. It was meant for Israel... For the coming Millennial Kingdom... NOT for the Body of Christ in modern times.

On the other hand: We (RD and myself) are talking about how GOVERNMENTS should behave, and the scripture we use is not meant to be taken personally as instruction for individuals, but rather is advice on how a godly government should act.

If you keep that in mind (as a general rule, that is), the apparent contradiction goes away, and you are left with a better understanding of Scripture.

Why?

Because that is rightly dividing the word of Truth.

 

[fzappa13]

We use the context of the various passages to determine their proper meaning.
Do you think that it's "merciful" to ignore crime and the negative impact this has on so many people?

Do you think that God gave us a book that we are incapable of understanding?
Is it possible that we can understand it and that you are making it seem far more difficult than it really is?

As it regards your first question the short answer would be "no". I would have hoped that was obvious when I related my 10 year attempt to seek prosecution of crime at my locale. I was an integral part of an effort that saw my county move thru 3 judicial districts and 5 District Attorneys to no avail. Either a Sheriff would muck it up or a D.A. or a couple of Grand Jury members or, finally, the State's Attorney General's office would come to sit on the matters like a hen on an egg. At a certain point one has to consider the possibility that it was just not God's will at this time.

I eventually came to see this as part of a larger phenomenon that is unfolding across this planet and is yet another indicator of the day in which we live. Mr. Soros and his friends are buying D.A.s wholesale and directing them to essentially not do their job. This is causing crime to flourish. I think this aspect of the time we are in is spoken of in the Bible.

Mat 24: 12And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

In the Strong's Concordance the word here translated as "iniquity" is defined as follows:

458 anomía (from 1 /A "not" and 3551 /nómos, "law") – properly, without law;

It has become apparent to me that the lawlessness that we are seeing proliferate is one of many signs of the time that we are in and we will not prevent it, try as we might. What concerns me most is the second part of Mat 24:12. Whether or not I love is something I have control of and that is my greatest concern ... that I might lose my grip on love in the face of all this. Paul and John both told us that love is the most important thing you can lay hands on in this life. Indeed John went on to tell us that God is love and one after another of the folks who have had near death experiences confirm this.

As it concerns your second question, again the short answer would be no. That said, I would say that it is the most difficult piece of literature on the planet to master. Indeed it is not literature at all. It stands alone in the world of books. There is nothing else like it. It is the pearl of great price. The way that the various books mesh and the way that the old and new testament mesh across time speaks of the singular nature of author of them all. My first attempt to read the Bible came at the age of 14. I was reading college level books at the age of 12 and so at 14 I thought to myself that if the Bible was the end all and be all I was going to conquer that hill. Suffice to say I flamed out in the middle of "so and so begat so and so who begat so and so, etc., ad nauseum." What was the point in all that? My next shot at the Bible came at the age of 24. This time I got a red letter edition reasoning to myself that I would cut to the chase and read just the red words. Some of those words said "my sheep hear my voice and another's they will not hear." I heard that voice. That was my foothold. That was my way in to the rest of it eventually. The cares of this world gradually flooded back in to claim my attention and I have to confess that I didn't turn to study the Bible in earnest until my late 30's after my father's death. I had been studying history and during the course of this effort I began to discern a direction and course in world events that, if one were to graph this direction and draw a line thru points A and B it would carry you forth to C and C looked a whole lot like some of the things that I had read in those red letters.

So my study of the Bible began in earnest. My father had just died and left me some money and, as a result, I didn't have to work so I was able to apply myself to this effort full time for what eventually turned out to be 3 years. I amassed a library that I would eventually sell to the local Baptist College prior to moving. The one thing I didn't buy in the way of books was commentaries. I wanted to figure this book out for myself. It was my good fortune that both my parents were agnostic so I didn't have to unlearn anything. I read the Bible like I was the first person to do so. I was an explorer and it was undiscovered land.

When I say I didn't buy commentaries that not entirely true. I bought one and that was The Treasury of David by C. H. Spurgeon as he alone was able to pass my litmus test as it concerned understanding the Bible. In his preface to the 22nd Psalm he wrote "When reading this psalm one should remove their shoes as if there is holy ground anywhere in the Bible it is here." Because I was familiar with the red words I knew exactly what I was looking at when I read the first line. The hair literally stood up on the back of my neck. Here was the cross 1,500 years before it happened and in that moment I knew beyond doubting that this word was true and that gave me the impetus to understand it as best I could.

Understanding this word is a lifelong endeavor for those willing to apply themselves. Most reach some point at which they are satisfied with their understanding of it and cease their efforts. Others wax and wane in their efforts. Rare is the individual that makes it a life long pursuit. I would suggest to you that anyone who thinks they have the whole thing figured out is mistaken. Myself included of course.

 

[JudgeRightly]

As it regards your first question the short answer would be "no". I would have hoped that was obvious when I related my 10 year attempt to seek prosecution of crime at my locale. I was an integral part of an effort that saw my county move thru 3 judicial districts and 5 District Attorneys to no avail. Either a Sheriff would muck it up or a D.A. or a couple of Grand Jury members or, finally, the State's Attorney General's office would come to sit on the matters like a hen on an egg. At a certain point one has to consider the possibility that it was just not God's will at this time.

I eventually came to see this as part of a larger phenomenon that is unfolding across this planet and is yet another indicator of the day in which we live. Mr. Soros and his friends are buying D.A.s wholesale and directing them to essentially not do their job. This is causing crime to flourish. I think this aspect of the time we are in is spoken of in the Bible.

Mat 24: 12And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

In the Strong's Concordance the word here translated as "iniquity" is defined as follows:

458 anomía (from 1 /A "not" and 3551 /nómos, "law") – properly, without law;

It has become apparent to me that the lawlessness that we are seeing proliferate is one of many signs of the time that we are in and we will not prevent it, try as we might. What concerns me most is the second part of Mat 24:12. Whether or not I love is something I have control of and that is my greatest concern ... that I might lose my grip on love in the face of all this. Paul and John both told us that love is the most important thing you can lay hands on in this life. Indeed John went on to tell us that God is love and one after another of the folks who have had near death experiences confirm this.

As it concerns your second question, again the short answer would be no. That said, I would say that it is the most difficult piece of literature on the planet to master. Indeed it is not literature at all. It stands alone in the world of books. There is nothing else like it. It is the pearl of great price. The way that the various books mesh and the way that the old and new testament mesh across time speaks of the singular nature of author of them all. My first attempt to read the Bible came at the age of 14. I was reading college level books at the age of 12 and so at 14 I thought to myself that if the Bible was the end all and be all I was going to conquer that hill. Suffice to say I flamed out in the middle of "so and so begat so and so who begat so and so, etc., ad nauseum." What was the point in all that? My next shot at the Bible came at the age of 24. This time I got a red letter edition reasoning to myself that I would cut to the chase and read just the red words. Some of those words said "my sheep hear my voice and another's they will not hear." I heard that voice. That was my foothold. That was my way in to the rest of it eventually. The cares of this world gradually flooded back in to claim my attention and I have to confess that I didn't turn to study the Bible in earnest until my late 30's after my father's death. I had been studying history and during the course of this effort I began to discern a direction and course in world events that, if one were to graph this direction and draw a line thru points A and B it would carry you forth to C and C looked a whole lot like some of the things that I had read in those red letters.

So my study of the Bible began in earnest. My father had just died and left me some money and, as a result, I didn't have to work so I was able to apply myself to this effort full time for what eventually turned out to be 3 years. I amassed a library that I would eventually sell to the local Baptist College prior to moving. The one thing I didn't buy in the way of books was commentaries. I wanted to figure this book out for myself. It was my good fortune that both my parents were agnostic so I didn't have to unlearn anything. I read the Bible like I was the first person to do so. I was an explorer and it was undiscovered land.

When I say I didn't buy commentaries that not entirely true. I bought one and that was The Treasury of David by C. H. Spurgeon as he alone was able to pass my litmus test as it concerned understanding the Bible. In his preface to the 22nd Psalm he wrote "When reading this psalm one should remove their shoes as if there is holy ground anywhere in the Bible it is here." Because I was familiar with the red words I knew exactly what I was looking at when I read the first line. The hair literally stood up on the back of my neck. Here was the cross 1,500 years before it happened and in that moment I knew beyond doubting that this word was true and that gave me the impetus to understand it as best I could.

Understanding this word is a lifelong endeavor for those willing to apply themselves. Most reach some point at which they are satisfied with their understanding of it and cease their efforts. Others wax and wane in their efforts. Rare is the individual that makes it a life long pursuit. I would suggest to you that anyone who thinks they have the whole thing figured out is mistaken. Myself included of course.

The Plot

science, philosophy, theology, morality, criminal justice, the Bible, apologetics

store.kgov.com

You'll never need another commentary.

 

[Right Divider]

I don't ever remember claiming to be without sin...

@Right Divider, did I ever claim to be without sin, to make @fzappa13 say something like this?

Not that I'm aware of. But we do get falsely accused of that quite a bit.

 

[Right Divider]

As it regards your first question the short answer would be "no".

That's a good start.

I would have hoped that was obvious when I related my 10 year attempt to seek prosecution of crime at my locale. I was an integral part of an effort that saw my county move thru 3 judicial districts and 5 District Attorneys to no avail. Either a Sheriff would muck it up or a D.A. or a couple of Grand Jury members or, finally, the State's Attorney General's office would come to sit on the matters like a hen on an egg. At a certain point one has to consider the possibility that it was just not God's will at this time.

Why would you "have to consider" that something that is clearly opposed to God's will is His will at this time?

I eventually came to see this as part of a larger phenomenon that is unfolding across this planet and is yet another indicator of the day in which we live. Mr. Soros and his friends are buying D.A.s wholesale and directing them to essentially not do their job. This is causing crime to flourish. I think this aspect of the time we are in is spoken of in the Bible.

Mat 24: 12And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

In the Strong's Concordance the word here translated as "iniquity" is defined as follows:

458 anomía (from 1 /A "not" and 3551 /nómos, "law") – properly, without law;

So that is clearly opposed to God's will, is it not?

It has become apparent to me that the lawlessness that we are seeing proliferate is one of many signs of the time that we are in and we will not prevent it, try as we might.

While we may not prevent it, that does not mean that we cannot oppose it.

What concerns me most is the second part of Mat 24:12. Whether or not I love is something I have control of and that is my greatest concern ... that I might lose my grip on love in the face of all this. Paul and John both told us that love is the most important thing you can lay hands on in this life. Indeed John went on to tell us that God is love and one after another of the folks who have had near death experiences confirm this.

God is also a consuming fire.

Deut 4:24 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:24) For the LORD thy God [is] a consuming fire, [even] a jealous God.​

As it concerns your second question, again the short answer would be no.

Excellent.

That said, I would say that it is the most difficult piece of literature on the planet to master. Indeed it is not literature at all. It stands alone in the world of books. There is nothing else like it. It is the pearl of great price. The way that the various books mesh and the way that the old and new testament mesh across time speaks of the singular nature of author of them all. My first attempt to read the Bible came at the age of 14. I was reading college level books at the age of 12 and so at 14 I thought to myself that if the Bible was the end all and be all I was going to conquer that hill. Suffice to say I flamed out in the middle of "so and so begat so and so who begat so and so, etc., ad nauseum." What was the point in all that? My next shot at the Bible came at the age of 24. This time I got a red letter edition reasoning to myself that I would cut to the chase and read just the red words. Some of those words said "my sheep hear my voice and another's they will not hear." I heard that voice. That was my foothold. That was my way in to the rest of it eventually. The cares of this world gradually flooded back in to claim my attention and I have to confess that I didn't turn to study the Bible in earnest until my late 30's after my father's death. I had been studying history and during the course of this effort I began to discern a direction and course in world events that, if one were to graph this direction and draw a line thru points A and B it would carry you forth to C and C looked a whole lot like some of the things that I had read in those red letters.

So my study of the Bible began in earnest. My father had just died and left me some money and, as a result, I didn't have to work so I was able to apply myself to this effort full time for what eventually turned out to be 3 years. I amassed a library that I would eventually sell to the local Baptist College prior to moving. The one thing I didn't buy in the way of books was commentaries. I wanted to figure this book out for myself. It was my good fortune that both my parents were agnostic so I didn't have to unlearn anything. I read the Bible like I was the first person to do so. I was an explorer and it was undiscovered land.

You sure do tend to make long meandering stories out of things.

When I say I didn't buy commentaries that not entirely true. I bought one and that was The Treasury of David by C. H. Spurgeon as he alone was able to pass my litmus test as it concerned understanding the Bible.

That's too bad. Spurgeon believed many falsehoods about the scripture, including water baptism for the body of Christ.

In his preface to the 22nd Psalm he wrote "When reading this psalm one should remove their shoes as if there is holy ground anywhere in the Bible it is here."

That is clearly a big mistake.

Because I was familiar with the red words I knew exactly what I was looking at when I read the first line. The hair literally stood up on the back of my neck. Here was the cross 1,500 years before it happened and in that moment I knew beyond doubting that this word was true and that gave me the impetus to understand it as best I could.

So many people get the wrong idea about the "red letters", since the entire Bible has Christ as its author.

Understanding this word is a lifelong endeavor for those willing to apply themselves. Most reach some point at which they are satisfied with their understanding of it and cease their efforts. Others wax and wane in their efforts. Rare is the individual that makes it a life long pursuit. I would suggest to you that anyone who thinks they have the whole thing figured out is mistaken. Myself included of course.

I don't claim to "have the whole thing figured out", but it is clear that God does not make mercy unbounded to accept "mercy for murderers" or "mercy for rapists" or "mercy for thieves", etc. They are all to be brought to justice for their actions.

So what about the third question?

 

[fzappa13]

That's a good start.

Why would you "have to consider" that something that is clearly opposed to God's will is His will at this time?

So that is clearly opposed to God's will, is it not?

While we may not prevent it, that does not mean that we cannot oppose it.

God is also a consuming fire.

Deut 4:24 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:24) For the LORD thy God [is] a consuming fire, [even] a jealous God.​

Excellent.

You sure do tend to make long meandering stories our of things.

That's too bad. Spurgeon believed many falsehood about the scripture, including water baptism for the body of Christ.

That is clearly a big mistake.

So many people get the wrong idea about the "red letters", since the entire Bible has Christ as its author.

I don't claim to "have the whole thing figured out", but it is clear that God does not make mercy unbounded to accept "mercy for murderers" or "mercy for rapists" or "mercy for thieves", etc. They are all to be brought to justice for their actions.

So what about the third question?

You and your friend are not reading my offerings to gain an understanding of what I am saying. You are parsing it for the purpose of disputing it regardless of what I say. I am not here for that.

Rom 14:

Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

2For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

3Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

4Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You and your friend are not reading my offerings to gain an understanding of what I am saying.

We understand what you're saying just fine.

You just don't like that we don't simply agree with you.

You are parsing it for the purpose of disputing it regardless of what I say. I am not here for that.

Then go somewhere else.

This forum is for discussion of ideas, not one-sided preaching.

If you don't like having your ideas critiqued, then this isn't the place for you.

 

[Right Divider]

You and your friend are not reading my offerings to gain an understanding of what I am saying. You are parsing it for the purpose of disputing it regardless of what I say. I am not here for that.

FALSE accusation. I read the entire post and responded appropriately.

Rom 14:

Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

2For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

3Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

4Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

Cute, a passage about food.

I noticed that you are not responding to a single thing that I said... hypocrite!

 

[Nick M]

It's a who's who of people with Trump Derangement Syndrome. The first person I heard say Michelle Obama is a tranny is Joan Rivers, who goes to the island. It was already obvious (that is is Michael, not Michelle), but she said it out loud. Naomi Campbell is on the list with Oprah Winfrey. Maybe she helped bring in young girls for Oprah that Bill Clinton and the British Royals like.

 

[Lon]

Because both the actor and the character he portrays have links to the same outfit. Not to mention that there is a lot of criticism from anti traffickers for all sorts of discrepancies and inaccuracies within the film. It's doubtless one of the talking points of late but it's not a film to take at face value, that's for sure.

Why Anti-Trafficking Experts Are Torching ‘Sound of Freedom’

The new movie offers a "false perception" of child trafficking that experts worry could further harm the real victims

www.yahoo.com

It doesn't matter. We don't fight against someone 'when they are right.' That just becomes double-minded. It is better to 'NOT' get involved in such a thread because your message becomes "I'm against the message of the film" by association of unbalanced objection.

Follow: I see a movie by Jim Jones let's say, that says "Child molestation is bad." Jim Jones was insane and wicked BUT his movie subject would be something that I'm also against. Further, even if a few points off, the atrocity of Child molestation, abuse, and murder GREATLY outweighs the topic "Jim Jones is crazy and inhumane" for the discussion (I look crass and petty exactly 'for' the unbalanced criticism, though Jim Jones is a can of worms nearly on par to the topic, QAnon is not). As much as I am against Jim Jones (and Jim Caveizel associated with QAnon is nowhere near the same) entering a thread about Child trafficking, abuse, and murder, would either have me silent or 'agreeing' with the premise despite the hang-up. It looks callous to 'child trafficking/abuse/murder' otherwise (yes, you are looking callous for entrance on the pithy in comparison). Worse than pithy? Callous, liberally supportive, unintellectual, the exact opposite of what you'd want to be seen as. You simply MUST have sympathy and empathy for the subject matter and treat it (child trafficking) as aberrant, not come in and bash a movie, however poorly you think they portrayed the subject.

I'm not your moral director, but I am capable of talking about how crass such comes across: your hang-up with Jim Caveizel is GREATER than your concern over Child trafficking, abuse, and murder, by NOT saying very clearly from the outset and in nearly every post after "I'm AGAINST sex trafficking AND think movies and information like this are necessary, but they did a lousy job!" or something along the line. Because you came out against a film against child abuse (however poorly done) it doesn't look good. I believe I know you well enough to not have come to that conclusion but many don't know you and ever after reading this thread will come to conclusions about you (barring them reading the whole thread), and those summations of you will not be in your favor against child atrocities.

 

[ok doser]

It doesn't matter. We don't fight against someone 'when they are right.' That just becomes double-minded. It is better to 'NOT' get involved in such a thread because your message becomes "I'm against the message of the film" by association of unbalanced objection.

Follow: I see a movie by Jim Jones let's say, that says "Child molestation is bad." Jim Jones was insane and wicked BUT his movie subject would be something that I'm also against. Further, even if a few points off, the atrocity of Child molestation, abuse, and murder GREATLY outweighs the topic "Jim Jones is crazy and inhumane" for the discussion (I look crass and petty exactly 'for' the unbalanced criticism, though Jim Jones is a can of worms nearly on par to the topic, QAnon is not). As much as I am against Jim Jones (and Jim Caveizel associated with QAnon is nowhere near the same) entering a thread about Child trafficking, abuse, and murder, would either have me silent or 'agreeing' with the premise despite the hang-up. It looks callous to 'child trafficking/abuse/murder' otherwise (yes, you are looking callous for entrance on the pithy in comparison). Worse than pithy? Callous, liberally supportive, unintellectual, the exact opposite of what you'd want to be seen as. You simply MUST have sympathy and empathy for the subject matter and treat it (child trafficking) as aberrant, not come in and bash a movie, however poorly you think they portrayed the subject.

I'm not your moral director, but I am capable of talking about how crass such comes across: your hang-up with Jim Caveizel is GREATER than your concern over Child trafficking, abuse, and murder, by NOT saying very clearly from the outset and in nearly every post after "I'm AGAINST sex trafficking AND think movies and information like this are necessary, but they did a lousy job!" or something along the line. Because you came out against a film against child abuse (however poorly done) it doesn't look good. I believe I know you well enough to not have come to that conclusion but many don't know you and ever after reading this thread will come to conclusions about you (barring them reading the whole thread), and those summations of you will not be in your favor against child atrocities.

Leftists/liberals are by their very definition supporters of perversion and blasphemy

 

[Nick M]

Arthur Brain serves his familiar spirits that the prince of power of the air sends. He fights against everything right. He is never to be treated any way other than how Paul treated Bar Jesus.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It doesn't matter. We don't fight against someone 'when they are right.' That just becomes double-minded. It is better to 'NOT' get involved in such a thread because your message becomes "I'm against the message of the film" by association of unbalanced objection.

Follow: I see a movie by Jim Jones let's say, that says "Child molestation is bad." Jim Jones was insane and wicked BUT his movie subject would be something that I'm also against. Further, even if a few points off, the atrocity of Child molestation, abuse, and murder GREATLY outweighs the topic "Jim Jones is crazy and inhumane" for the discussion (I look crass and petty exactly 'for' the unbalanced criticism, though Jim Jones is a can of worms nearly on par to the topic, QAnon is not). As much as I am against Jim Jones (and Jim Caveizel associated with QAnon is nowhere near the same) entering a thread about Child trafficking, abuse, and murder, would either have me silent or 'agreeing' with the premise despite the hang-up. It looks callous to 'child trafficking/abuse/murder' otherwise (yes, you are looking callous for entrance on the pithy in comparison). Worse than pithy? Callous, liberally supportive, unintellectual, the exact opposite of what you'd want to be seen as. You simply MUST have sympathy and empathy for the subject matter and treat it (child trafficking) as aberrant, not come in and bash a movie, however poorly you think they portrayed the subject.

I'm not your moral director, but I am capable of talking about how crass such comes across: your hang-up with Jim Caveizel is GREATER than your concern over Child trafficking, abuse, and murder, by NOT saying very clearly from the outset and in nearly every post after "I'm AGAINST sex trafficking AND think movies and information like this are necessary, but they did a lousy job!" or something along the line. Because you came out against a film against child abuse (however poorly done) it doesn't look good. I believe I know you well enough to not have come to that conclusion but many don't know you and ever after reading this thread will come to conclusions about you (barring them reading the whole thread), and those summations of you will not be in your favor against child atrocities.

Well, anyone who thinks that I have a greater concern over Jim Caveizel than I do about sex trafficking with my posts has misread my posts and/or misunderstood them, or just flat out trolling. Those are not characteristics that I would attribute to you as you're clearly an intelligent man and I find your post unjustified and rather insulting in that regard. Not real interested in hanging around this ghost town of a joint nowadays as it's dreary, boring, unhinged and has about as much traffic these days as a road in the Sahara desert. Merry Christmas though, the best to you and yours.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Arthur Brain serves his familiar spirits that the prince of power of the air sends. He fights against everything right. He is never to be treated any way other than how Paul treated Bar Jesus.

Sure thing little Nicky, sure thing. Merry Christmas anyway though!

 

[JudgeRightly]

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to you too! Arthur!

Christ is the reason for the season, don't you forget!

 

[Lon]

Well, anyone who thinks that I have a greater concern over Jim Caveizel than I do about sex trafficking with my posts has misread my posts and/or misunderstood them, or just flat out trolling. Those are not characteristics that I would attribute to you as you're clearly an intelligent man and I find your post unjustified and rather insulting in that regard.

Listen: If I didn't know you, I would have thought, from your initial posts, you were! Insulting? Agree! It'd be insulting and you NEVER want to be seen that way. Unjustified? Can I do a few initial quotes of yours in thread from you? They did not look good AB. Didn't JR feel he had to ask you? Do you honestly not know why? I'm certain if you reread yourself, you'll see why the alarm here. In addition, I said "if I didn't know you." That was important. You can certainly say I was wrong to raise the alarm prematurely but after JR asked you 'if' you were against Child trafficking AND I had already been a bit alarmed with what I was reading...Yeah I could have been yelling "Bear!" in a crowded penguin house. It didn't seem so at the time.

Not real interested in hanging around this ghost town of a joint nowadays as it's dreary, boring, unhinged and has about as much traffic these days as a road in the Sahara desert. Merry Christmas though, the best to you and yours.

Merry Christmas to you and your's too. I just visited a small town where the main road had become a dirt alley. Was rather sad to see sidewalks completely covered in dirt. I lament any boomtown aftermath.

 

[Lon]

A couple of these:

These zestier strains of scaremongering are absent in the text itself, but they lurk in the shadows around a film outwardly non-insane enough to lure in the persuadable; the disappointingly un-juicy Sound of Freedom pretends to be a real movie, like a “pregnancy crisis center” masquerading as a bona fide health clinic.

Now this guy IS this bad. Because it 'looks' like it was you on an initial read without look, it 'can' point directly back to you and in any inordinate amount that you 'like' what you are quoting, it is problematic, like bashing a pretentious Salvation Army santa for having a fake beard and no reindeer. The guy is bashing crisis pregnancy centers! You SHOULD have steered far and clear from this guy! ANYBODY doing good, on thier own dime, should NOT be bashed (crisis pregnancy centers)! The guy has a real chip on his shoulder and it frankly isn't pretty. I'm flatly shocked you'd think him quotable. He's no stellar example of human dignity despite his intellectualized verbosity.

(Our hero Ballard, by the way, went on to found the paramilitary rescue squad Operation Underground Railroad, a group criticized as “arrogant, unethical, and illegal” by the authorities. But then, they would say that. They’re in on it, this goes all the way to the top, etc.)

Right, the people that purposefully don't care about who the law is protecting OTHER than babies and little girls, AB! Please see him for the low-life he is! I REALLY don't like him at this venture and I like about everybody!

Those hoping for a few detached laughs at the deep-dish delusion sneaking onto the mainstream radar

Right, in a movie about child-predation, abuse and murder! This man, Arthur Brain, has no morality at this point. Critic? From which corner of Hell? Does he even see how debase he has been? It is a movie about an actual man that actually has rescued babies! For crying out loud! Why did you even bring him here? This critic doesn't belong anywhere, not even on ABC. Not on PBS. He deserves no platform, he's heinous.

will be bored by the straight face donned for the duration of the run time – until, that is, a small counter in the corner of the credit roll warns of a “Special Message” in two minutes. Having dropped his character, Caviezel himself appears to say that though we might be feeling frightened or saddened, he’d like everyone to leave with a message of hope for the future. Directly after establishing that he’s not the center of attention here, he betrays an evident messianic complex by announcing that his movie could very well be the most important ever made, going so far as to compare it to Uncle Tom’s Cabin in its campaign to shine a light on 21st-century slavery. This is all for the children, we’re told, but they can’t do much to save themselves, can they?

Er, but the movie is supposed to change that! Hope that we 'can' do something! This guy is callous AND heartless. He has NO (zero) business unless he is doing something about this, to say a word. I bet no $ on his part and definitely callouses on his soul.

everyone agrees that child trafficking is indefensible

Except he just wasted incredible angst and verbiage (not really high-brow language either, just a lot of windage), slamming a story about a guy that literally saved kids on his own. No this 'intellectual giant' instead confuses the message and the atrocity with "Jim Caveizel and QAnon (that he cares WAY more about than any child trafficking, demonstrably)!

Nah, but I get that the far right conflate any sorta criticism with the like which is kinda par for the course. kinda hilarious and ironic also but hey.

Not hilarious at all. BECAUSE you said it, he is going to ask you in two pages where your loyalties lie because, for him, they get lost.

I support freeing children from any sort of trafficking ring but sure don't support propaganda crap.

That is JUST what the guy above said and I seriously doubt he told the truth. He doesn't care a whit about children abused/killed and it is rather likely has never done anything to help anybody else in his life in compassion. He is/was way more interested in bashing Crisis Pregnancy Center, Jim Caveizel and QAnon than said children nor did the actual story of said children even come in his critique. Not. Even. One. Word. And you liked him, thought he was a brilliant orator. A guy, who has no soul, no care, no concern. He JUST watched a movie and certainly knows there is a huge chunk of the movie that is true. What does he do? What would I do? You didn't see it, but I doubt you'd be this callous and shallow.

Caveizel is promoting all sorts of bonkers rubbish for this film

Like the men who have abused? Taken part? What other rubbish? One site takes him and the film to task saying "ONLY 10% of trafficking is done by complete strangers!" Okay, but that isn't "bonkers" nor rubbish, if even only for the 10. It is 'harmful' to say that (and callous to 1 in 10). This story is about those 1 in 10.

so sometimes it pays to pay attention to stuff like that. Then again, you probably agree with it anyway...

ONLY (else we are seen as callous as these 'critics' truly are) if it is completely wrong, or even 'mostly' wrong. This isn't. QAnon? It is about the 10% at that point that verifiably exists. Simply saying "crazy" is actually harmful. Caviezel may have the #'s wrong, even some of secrecy wrong. NOBODY (nobody) who starts attacking someone that is trying to do something good. Something to stop a bad, is going to be seen as the 'good guy.' Of course our world is rooting for Israel's attackers, so we face a lot of problematics in our society. Lord help us when we root for the 'bad guy.'

You do realize that films that are based on "true stories" often sensationalize the subject matter?

Yes. There have been several war movies that NEVER get this kind of bad press, even though they weren't 'completely' accurate. Everybody knows the difference. You'd think an intellectual like the critics above, would have 'known' the difference with their supposed intelligence.

Anyone with some objectivity would question this film but I don't expect much of that around here these days...

Why? What in it causes you to object? The part where kids are taken? Killed? Doesn't happen? The "only" ten percent that are abducted by people they don't know?

It isn't that I believe you've been callous. You could have been clearer on "Child trafficking is despicable!" You likely should have thought a bit more, however, in bringing much much more callous individuals in quote to thread. They aren't stellar human beings (demonstrably). Whatever your hang-up with the movie, you might have kept a bit to yourself and rather argued or pointed out the merits of the difference rather than find a guy that hates anybody trying to save babies, either by a crisis pregnancy center, or a santa collecting his coins for needy children, or despising Jim Caveizel for whatever reason. They are deplorable and you brought them here. The first guy I never want to hear again. He doesn't appear (at all) to have a soul. He looks exactly this crass and heartless.

See here btw: https://www.today.com/popculture/movies/sound-of-freedom-movie-controversy-rcna95992 Caviezel says he hadn't been familiar with QAnon. It also dispels a lot of the aforementioned comments from the intellectual critics cited in thread, and this coming from the Today Show.

 

[Lon]

Anyone with some objectivity would question this film but I don't expect much of that around here these days...

Not at all. I think it odd that Brits do. It truly shows a HUGE disconnect, are they incapable, other than attaching to what is insignificant, of grasping a larger concept, a 'reason' for making a movie like this in the first place?

Was reading a bit from the Guardian because I'm genuinely concerned about this 'British' phenomena:

Charles Bramesco, Guardian journalist: Caviezel stars as special agent Tim Ballard, a Homeland Security Investigations operative who really did work for the state busting up child-trafficking rings for [than] more a decade.

True, if even he nor his editor are capable of correction. But prior he says:

Type the words “sound of freedom” into Twitter (decent people who wish to live good, happy lives should under no circumstances actually do this)

Assuming of course, 'decent' means plugging your ears. Apparently British "decency" cannot be bothered with atrocity? Is that what's going on in the Land of Crumpets? A desire to not see realities of what is going on when it isn't tea-time? There is a hollow reverberation of 'Let them eat cake" behind the disconnect. How 'privileged is Mr. (or is it "Sir?") Charles Bramesco?

He then, boringly, callously goes on to discuss comparative successes between it and Indiana Jones, once again comparing fiction to 'based on a true story' as if there is something worthy of his boredom on point, honestly? to simply lambaste arrogantly, insensitively, what he doesn't like in 'entertainment.' Problem: Charles Bramesco actually thinks that the only good movie, is an 'entertaining' movie! Even Arthur's quotes stress this. The guy literally is this incredibly shallow and it is bothersome in the least and detestable at the worst because he doesn't understand that a movie can be made for the purpose of 'informing.' Of course there are a good number of petty audience members to go around, and it is likely this narcissistic self-centered 'entertainment driven' ego-centrism that feeds the movie critic in the first place (if not the modest or hefty paycheck).

Judging by the robust round of applause that concluded the fully-seated screening I attended on Wednesday evening – and this, in the liberal Sodom of Manhattan! – it would seem that the folks at the two-year-old Angel Studios have tapped into a substantial and eagerly marshaled viewership.

See how out of touch? The guy is sitting in a theater where all the audience members applaud and he cannot, for the life of him, find one good thing. He should have realized, at the very least, that there was something important, some appeal.

Following that money leads back to a more unsavory network of astroturfed (mindless way of saying 'agendized') boosterism (not so intelligent way of saying 'support' :Z) among the far-right fringe, a constellation (group)of paranoids (because they believe even the 10 percent of killed and abused children is worthy of telling their story) now attempting to spin a cause célèbre ("famous/celebrity") out of a movie with vaguely simpatico (pleasing) leanings.

Which really isn't that high and mighty nor brightly intellectual to say. Obscuring intellect is hardly a high mark. He used a bunch of big wors to say "I don't like the focused support among conservatives trying to make a cause out of something that makes them particularly happy and even in its simplicity says not a whole lot but 'look at me! I can use big words to confuse you into thinking I'm REALLY saying something!

Charles then quickly insults the 'uninitiated' like he's the paragon of high intellectual think (he just showed he is not), for not noticing his feigned superiority because he can use 'big words' to say absolutely nothing intelligent but "I disdain this movie and why it was made because I'm a hedonist and could care less about an important topic, truly." To be fair, Charles isn't a paragon of virtue to many movies out there, but he certainly is incapable of understanding the difference between a movie 'to inform' vs 'entertainment' and he is just hedonistic enough to miss the virtue and valor of anything made for other than his hedonistic appetite, including something made to stop something that is an atrocity. He literally could not see this, regardless of his broadened vocabulary, he just was incapable.

 

[ok doser]

Following that money leads back to a more unsavory network of astroturfed (mindless way of saying 'agendized') boosterism (not so intelligent way of saying 'support' :Z) among the far-right fringe, a constellation (group)of paranoids (because they believe even the 10 percent of killed and abused children is worthy of telling their story) now attempting to spin a cause célèbre ("famous/celebrity") out of a movie with vaguely simpatico (pleasing) leanings.

A professional writer wrote that?
And the guardian published it?

They should both be horse whipped

 

[Lon]

A professional writer wrote that?
And the guardian published it?

They should both be horse whipped

It'd be like a Democrat, coming to a Republican human aid summit, being so anti-Republican that he 1) cannot focus on the good being done and 2) doesn't take it back to the Democrats, writes an article or stands up during the summit and condemns the summit! Tar and feathering at least, that'd give him 2 weeks of allergies and a huge ring around the tub to think about it.