[Reviewing the film Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium]
Sexual Immorality (S)
62 comments
If she had worn a dress that covered the gap, the Sexual Immorality investigation area score would have been 100.
I think you get bonus points for covering up your ankles. Oh, and if you wear a cross, you get 60 points and unlock a secret level and the password to a Christian flash game site!
Don't argue with me about what is morally acceptable. Argue about it with God. He will give you a much better Answer than I ever could.
I'm at a loss as to how to contact the man. Churches advice me to establish telepathic contact by sitting in a certain posture and folding my hands, but try as I might, I could not get the guy to answer (big surprise there).
Mr. Carder has deeply rooted personal issues, I think, with dresses of the plunging neckline variety. He seems to associate such with cannibalism.
However, he may be right. Natalie Portman does look good enough to eat.
Natalie Portman could incite lust wearing a burlap sack dress and a paper bag mask.
Yeah. On that note, where does wearing a plunging neckline lead to cannibalism?
If I ever meet god, I will. Until then remember what Jesus would do.
"If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out."
CAPAlert is freeeeaaaaky.
The best part is their "press release" about how Harvard agrees with them just because one report by some people from Harvard says that there might be a "ratings slide." That doesn't mean that Harvard agrees with your methodology, CAPAlert...or anything else.
If a fundie decides to attack something that isn't explicitly christian propaganda, they can always find something they can call immoral about it if they just bluster hard enough.
I just love the phrasing, "the only content applicable to this application area", you can almost feel their disappointment at not having found anything really juicy to work themselves into a rage about.
and this retard actually goes to the cinema?!
Only to check movies for objectionable content, of course. Some of the movies he saw in the back of the adult video store were so bad that he couldn't even post reviews.
"Don't argue with me about what is morally acceptable. Argue about it with God. He will give you a much better Answer than I ever could."
Hmm.. I'll try that then.
To God : are cultural-specific displays of epidermis acceptable?
To Tom : are cultural-specific displays of epidermis acceptable?
What a spoilsport, there has to be something to keep the parent entertained during a children's movie and Natalie Portman's boobs will do better than Dustin Hoffman's boobs(UGH!).PSSpeaking of boobs, how boring a human being would you have to be to follow this idiot's reviews on what movies to see?
Argue about it with God.
Well, God hasn't said much about Natalie Portman's dress one way or the other. The Bible says "... whosoever [i.e., Tom himself] looketh on a woman [i.e., Natalie Portman] to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
It sounds like those of us who live in the real world and don't get all excited just seeing a woman's chest are home free. It's the repressed, closet chicken-chokers like Tom who've got the problem.
Frankly, all of these reviews are pants (oops, -5 points, Private Clothes should remain Private). They're all done by nutjobs (-5, offensive to The True People) who can't quite grasp the concept of "fiction" (-50, fiction is THE DEVIL!11).
It appears that they want all women (-5, this could be seen as a sexual comment) to wear burkhas (-5, using a muslim term), and for all movies to be about love (-5, could be seen as "sex" (-5, used a "three letter word") and happiness (-10, happy = "gay" = homosexuality = UNGODLY!!!!1).
I'd imagine the reviews are done (-5, "done" is innuendo) in such a way (-5, the only "way" is Jesus!!1) that they could all appear (-5, "appear" is magic!111) on FSTDT. Oh look (-5, looking is sinful), this review just gained a -5 according to their rating scheme (-5, sc....
Sweet Thor, after my last comment I went to the CAPalert site.
My eyes will never recover from the onslaught of crap webdesign and babbling insanity in the text.
Links like that should carry health warnings.
If we had to argue with God what is "culturally acceptable", we'll have to wonder why Adam and Eve went nude, for example, or how Abraham was more than happy to sacrifise his son without even questioning.
To be fair, this website does have a methodology for rating all the "objectionable" content in a movie. Mr Carder did review "Passion of the Christ" and marked it down for all the brutal violence in the film. While I may disagree with his distaste of Natalie Portman's cleaveage, he does do a good job of listing everything that could be found objectionable in a film and parents or grandparents can see what is listed and make their own determination. Personally, I would not think twice about the evil inherent in my kids seeing a little skin or the drinking of wine (also listed in the Passion's review). But I would take into account all the violence or profanity listed and make an informed decision before letting my kids see something.
I do think it is funny to see "shapeshifting" and "magic" listed under Offenses to god". Again, Mr Carder needs to relax, but he is putting these on a website as a guide so parents can make an informed decision rather than calling on theaters to ban a film because it offends his mythology. Parents can then decide for themselves if "shapeshifting" or "drinking to intoxication" is something that factors into their decision to let their kid see a movie.
P.S. On cannabalism and Natalie Portman, I have something that... never mind, it's too easy to make fun of this line.
apparently these people enjoy thinking that they are good enough to know what god sees as acceptable.
for all they know god wants us ALL to dress like that and THEY are the "sinners" and false profits for saying otherwise.
CPT, thanks for the comment. Yeah, Carder is nuts, but at least he's not advocating murdering angel-human hybrids or executing shoplifters. It's kind of refreshing.
ME: Hey, God, is it okay for me to check out Natalie Portman's rack?
I have two things to say to this:
1. Partial nudity is not the moral equivalent of cannibalism, no matter how you try to compare them.
2. Natalie Portman is teh hawtness.
Capalert, so many years of madness and still keeping on with it. I admire their perseverance if nothing else.
I do wish the site never got made though. It reads like a bad parody, and that is NOT a good thing when you're playing it completely straight, and you have to resort to mind-blowing doublethink to address the full ramifications of your site's purpose. See "Why don't you CAP the Bible" for a staggering (and not the good kind) example.
{quiet chuckle} I wonder if Carder realizes that God's original plan was that not just that part of the skin, but ALL skin, of male and of female, was meant to be "clearly displayed". At least at first.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
