This could have been a good, clever work of science fiction until about halfway through it morphs from clever and historical conversation to a preachy belittling of Christianity.
If you like that, good for you, enjoy the movie. If that's not your thing, consider yourself warned.
And if you like to consider yourself objective, a "preachy belittling of Christianity" is just one opinion when considering the overall possible intent of this movie. Not everyone agrees with that assessment.
share
But there are few things which are more eligible and more in need of a good bashing than the machination of Christianity.
There is no real bashing being done with this movie though. It dealt multiple points of view quite fairly.
The character of John is the most realistic version of Jesus I've seen in any film. I believe there is a sincerity and common sense involved that may offend the staunchly religious whose faith may actually be a bit more wobbly than they thought.
.
I do not feel in any way they bashed christ.
Christ talked about love , forgiving , turning the other cheek, charity, loving one another, being saved is a gift, you can't earn salvation.
I thought the movie accurately protrayed what christ was about, christ was not about the miracle, just love each other.
stop this love none sense, it makes me throw up
shareI wholly agree. The movie simply pointed out that most religions, all major religions today, are preaching the same values at it's core. They go about it in different ways though, which is explained by John's failed earlier attempts, so he tries to teach humanity in other ways.
Of course religious fanatics/fundamentalists takes things too far, but oh well.
so by not cherry picking parts of a holy book to follow and by following the whole thing, people are taking things too far?
shareLike these gems? How many of them are you following?:
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)
“This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)
“Do not allow a sorceress to live.” (Exodus 22:18)
“Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9)
“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)
“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)
i don't have slaves so advice on how to treat them isn't applicable. as far as i know there are no commandments to have slaves, please feel free to correct me. You seem to be confused as to what are commands to everybody following God and commands to a specific people or tribe. what applies to levites does not apply to all israel, what applies to israel does not apply to gentiles. in the bible it's often talking about a specific people, in a specific period. for instance leviticus deals with the preisthood.
sharein a specific period
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
So basically you are cherry-picking. Claiming some parts are not relevant while others are?no not at all. they are all relevant for the reason they were written.
So the parts about slave ownership, sexism and general despicability only apply to "good" jews.
But basically everything in the old testament applies to the Jewish people. How is that not cherry picking if you declare that some parts apply and others don't, freely and rather flexible? I really don't see why this is such a hard concept for you to grasp.
On the same topic: Homosexuality is clearly forbidden in the old testament. Does it only apply to "good jews" or is this one of points that surprisingly apply to today as well?
So the parts about slave ownership, sexism and general despicability only apply to "good" jews.i don't think you understand what slaves were. i don't think you really understand sexism either. men and women's brains are not the same as we now know, and we use different parts of our brains in the same situation. biologically we are not equal. men and women are of equal value and I think the new testement says exactly that. please have a look at the below link about slavery.
I don't really think what questions are since you failed to answer any of mine..
shareZorlan75, you're my new personal hero. If you can debate someone to the point that they're citing their belief that women are inferior to men, then you win the entire internet. I have used similar arguments against people who choose which parts of the bible to follow. Finding what they say is archaic and what parts are relevant. I usually get the same behavior. Backpedaling then outright ignoring the questions and points raised. So, bravo sir, bravo indeed!
The greatest story ever told in six words. "For Sale: Baby Shoes, Never Worn." - Ernest Hemingway
I just love people that use themes from a book they never read,
to justify ideas they never fully understood,
on topics that do not concern them...
What masticoret9 said zorlan...that makes two of us.
Keep up the good work.
The really sad part is how there are wars, and violence in general, started over either misunderstanding the text or blatantly ignoring parts that don't line up with what you want. I'm sure this is true for more religions than the ones based on the Bible. What I wish for the world is that we could only commit ourselves to violence only after every logical step was taken to avoid it. Not that defense shouldn't be taken, and quickly, when necessary. I just don't think we need to go kill brown people. Especially because of some random reason that we can't prove or because a mistranslated book that's older than the Roman Empire, says we should, in one out of context line.
The greatest story ever told in six words. "For Sale: Baby Shoes, Never Worn." - Ernest Hemingway
Actually, this is wrong. There's a significant amount of science on this topic. But, to understand it you have to go deeper than simply what you can discover by pursuing confirmation bias.
I recommend the book Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine as a perfect primer to understanding the differences between sexes and genders.
Actually, this is wrong.What exactly are you calling "this"... particularly replying to something from ages ago a quote wouldn't hurt.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071119170133.htm
If you find anything like this that has contrary findings I would be very interested.
I read the blurb of Delusions of Gender, sounds super boring. I'm not really interested in societies expectations of the genders and weather they are right or wrong. I have no expectations of people in general, let alone along gender lines.
"There are always rewards for those who state the obvious frequently and with conviction."
Yes, this is precisely why I mentioned confirmation bias (an important thing to understand, especially given how your reaction shows it in action). What you're looking at with your google research is the result of gendering on a brain.
It's complicated, too much for some IMDB thread. Which is why I mentioned the book. In short, I'm not trying to insult you. But, your model of male / female differences is outdated. Delusions of Gender is used often in modern gender studies courses.
I understand that you find the topic gender uninteresting. However, the book is very well written and engaging for the reader. The insights contained within undoubtedly would contribute to a more compelling model for understanding sex and gender differences.
It's actually a page turner.
But your assumptions are flawed. Originally I didn't find that article because I searched for differences in men and womens brains. I was doing research about brains in general, I think it was white/grey matter and their differences. I know what you're saying about confirming biases. Basically googling what you already think and finding somebody who agrees with you. That's not what I was doing.
If "gendering on the brain" means a brain reacts in a certain way because of how we are treated when growing up, then I don't see how anybody could prove that.
"There are always rewards for those who state the obvious frequently and with conviction."
The state-of-the-art science is out there. The book does a good job of communicating the ideas to laymen.
shareBlind Faith.
You can find this in any "devoted" religious person - especially in Christianity and Catholicism. Yes, the two are different, but that's a totally different discussion.
I hate the whole be a good slave BS in the bible. I do believe that the stories are pure fabrication and myth.
In my older years it's all about politics. Be a good slave to your cruel master because it says so in the bible. So do not protest even non-violently. Do not try to make a change for a better life because if you do then you won't get a better life after death.
It's just man trying to control man even after he dies.
But I do know from the little reading I've done on the various major religions is that there are similarities in their myths. With that there are some who then believe that since different religions talk about a great flood there must have been one.
Or, like the movie presented, which is how I tend to see thing now is that the myth started somewhere and carried across lands and was morphed into that land's people's holy myth to pass down.
I thought that him saying he was Christ who was actually just a guy trying to pass along Buddhism was funny. My belief is that there were more than one during the time of christ that were religious reformers and Jesus is just a composite of many with fantastical and embellished stories to go alone with it all.
The new testament was not official until after 300 ad when Constantine legalized it. Then whatever politicians of the day got together to decide which piece of parchment made it in and was to be the religion. After that they set out to murder anyone who believed any variation of the Jesus story that they did not deem to be legal.
It's all politics and control. Man does not evolve much as to why it is a major topic and influence in the politics in this century.
Two Thousand years from now Mormonism will be incorporated as New Testament three and that's a religion so easy to disprove that it's pathetic. I know because I lived next door to one of it's meccas and I did research at the local library and read the news clippings of that day and of Joseph Smith.
Right. I do not believe that man will evolve past reverent belief in his mythologies he says are truth and religion in the next 2000 years. Politics needs religion to operate. It was a good idea that the forefathers of the USA talked about separating the two, but it never really was accomplished. And today, we re-write history willy nilly for what other reason but to control the masses.
Well then you are a *beep* moron...
Lets just forget that you believe in a man in the sky that created the universe and that there once lived a man who could walk on water and make water into wine... Thats, while in my opinion dumb, understandable since many many more share this same fairytale belief.....
But the fact that you are offended by what a movie character says about "your religion" is *beep* retarded.. It is becomes even more ridicules by the fact that his (John) version is a million times more plausible than the version you believe in...
Do you honestly believe people think there's a man in the sky or is that just your way of belittling others without putting any thought into it like you accuse them of doing?
share[deleted]
Eeeehhhh in the way that Jesus was simply a man who taught basic human values such as kindness, honesty and integrity.. That may or may not have come from buddism... Or maybe you think it is more plausible that jesus was in fact the son of god, a super natural being that created the universe and everything in it in 7 days yada yada yada..??
[deleted]
You are missing the point.. Obviously the part about john walking the earth for 14k years is not plausible.. My point is that i find the concept, of jesus just being an ordinary human male who practiced values of kindness, honesty and integrity , much more believable than the *beep* the bible quotes..
In the film he claims that to some extent parts of the Biblical history were true, such as him hanging up on the cross (while he had apparently trained his body to slow down, to a point were he is still alive but unable to detect as living). Now to me that doesn't sound the least true. But also, according to history and that part of the Bible, a spear was plunged into the side of (John's) Jesus, which if didn't kill him then, definitely would have later due to blood loss or infection.
according to history and that part of the Bible, a spear was plunged into the side of (John's) Jesus, which if didn't kill him then, definitely would have later due to blood loss or infection.is mute. First of all lets get something straight here.. It is according to the BIBLE and NOT history. Secondly this whole argument rests on the assumption that the things quoted in the bible is actually true, which is what we are disagreeing about in the first place so to argue something that rests on such an assumption is mute.
And then how was the universe created before all of that happened? What,the Big Bang? Two atoms that randomly collide out of nowhere and instantly create the universe as we know it?? Now that doesn't seem plausible either
Watch the film again.
In the story, John was a philosopher who later, thanks to historical and religious mis-understanding, became remembered as Jesus Christ. He didn't bash Christianity, he expressed disdain at the thing that had been in done in the name of his original teachings that he learned from the Buddha.
-[ Why does modern horror movie suck?]-
Amen. The OP must find the average history textbook horribly offensive as well, considering that you essentially just described how contemporary historians really do think about Jesus (as in, his original message was quite different from the one accreted by generations of Church authorities).
__ __ __
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"--Pres. Merkin Muffley
I think you need to replace the word "mis-understanding" with "manipulation" instead!
shareWhat happens if Jesus was just a man who taught the same things? What is important about the faith? That you believe in God, or that you live a life according to the teachings of Christ?
Who is more blessed - someone who is kind and benevolent, who helps and respects others, but does not worship, or someone who worships but lives a life of selfishness and depravity?
Anyone who thinks the most important thing about Christianity is believing the fact that Christ was God's son has probably lost sight of a few things.
I hope u are just a troll looking for attention LOL - if not just to remind you and "religious person" right there YOU ALL A BUNCH OF FOKTARDS so u believe in a invisible dude in the sky and fairytale books and everyone whom try to make things up and make it more good even that if its just a joke u will get offended and not accept that ? LOL thats PATHETIC its a fairytale in first place LOL --- YOU R ALL FULL OF *beep* --- LMAO
shareWow, you talk like a fücking moron.
share[deleted]
Exactly what ruined for me too.
How could a man that lives for thousand of years after the event of crucifixion not see that christianity was the only thing holding the society together. That through its laws, allegories and metaphors society had order instead of chaos and people could coexist. That through its romanticism it nurtured imagination and innovation. Bashing the church when he didn't gave any other alternative for a sustainable social structure is plain stupid.
God promises eternal life, we deliver it.
How I rose from the dead in my spare time so can YOU.
by kibagami_genjurooo - Exactly what ruined for me too.
How could a man that lives for thousand of years after the event of crucifixion not see that christianity was the only thing holding the society together. That through its laws, allegories and metaphors society had order instead of chaos and people could coexist. That through its romanticism it nurtured imagination and innovation. Bashing the church when he didn't gave any other alternative for a sustainable social structure is plain stupid.
That's not quite right. When you have over 12000 years of knowledge and experience behind you, I assume you won't be so naive to think that people won't corrupt your idealistic utopia. So that's a fallacy in his obscure system (obscure cause he didn't offer too many details). Both buddhism and christianism had to adapt to the realities of life.
Also if after around 2000 years of gathering knowledge he still believes in that "message" is even worse.
God promises eternal life, we deliver it.
How I rose from the dead in my spare time so can YOU.
by kibagami_genjurooo - That's not quite right. When you have over 12000 years of knowledge and experience behind you, I assume you won't be so naive to think that people won't corrupt your idealistic utopia. So that's a fallacy in his obscure system (obscure cause he didn't offer too many details). Both buddhism and christianism had to adapt to the realities of life.
Also if after around 2000 years of gathering knowledge he still believes in that "message" is even worse.
What's with your attitude? It's not like I've been disrespectful in any way, but if you want to go that road.... be my guest and see what happens.
Edit: BTW, I never went off-topic since the corruption I was talking about was corruption in general to point out the failure of his buddhist alpha test system and the need for improvement, patching.
You said in your first comment that the main character offered no alternatives, when that clearly wasn't the case.
You said it yourself that it was someone else who corrupted the message, but at the same time you're wanting to blame the problem on the main character for being too idealistic.
If there's anything that's 'not quite right', in my opinion it would be the distractionary blame game that you're now playing..
by kibagami_genjurooo - What's with your attitude? It's not like I've been disrespectful in any way, but if you want to go that road.... be my guest and see what happens.
First, I didn't attack you.
Second, when I have reason to point stupidity, I point it.
Third, bias and logic are two different things. You are implying that my arguments are wrong because I might be biased? That doesn't make any sense.
Fourth, if you aren't conforming to it, then argue it further if you can.
God promises eternal life, we deliver it.
How I rose from the dead in my spare time so can YOU.
by kibagami_genjurooo - First, I didn't attack you.
Second, when I have reason to point stupidity, I point it.
Third, bias and logic are two different things. You are implying that my arguments are wrong because I might be biased? That doesn't make any sense.
Fourth, if you aren't conforming to it, then argue it further if you can.
First, I never said you attacked "me".
Last, when your first response illustrates how your bias affects your logic and leads to such an obvious misinterpretation, there is no reason to expect that the remainder of your comments will make any more sense,
when your continued insistence that your belief is something others need to "conform" to provides all the evidence that is necessary to illustrate your arguments' bias and lack of logic/sense...one of the stupidities of the church more than one of the characters referred to in this movie.
by kibagami_genjurooo - First, I didn't attack you.
by WhotoTrust - First, I never said you attacked "me".
by kibagami_genjurooo - That's the thing. I never did. Although I'm getting the impression that I'm wasting my time...
by kibagami_genjurooo - Lack of logic...
Say two people debate if a square is a square or a hexagon. In the end one will have to conform to the other's belief when enough solid arguments are given.
Do you even realize that you're talking in circles addressing something you were mistaken about in the first place?...because it doesn't seem like you do.
You called the main character/his message in this movie stupid, I referred to that as the "something" that you obviously didn't agree with, you then mistakenly interpreted my saying "something" as me saying me, and you're still mistakenly referring to my comment in that way...and further confirming the impression I'm getting that I'm wasting my time.
You're still simply trying to equate your "belief" with logic, as you've been doing from the beginning...
[...]or are you seriously trying to equate religion to a geometric shape/square?
You keep talking about it all being a matter of a belief that has to be conformed to when the example you've suggested is actually about acknowledging a simple provable truth. A square is simply a square regardless of whether someone may choose to "believe" it is something that should be regarded in a more complicated manner,
just as a simple message of truth is a simple message of truth regardless of whether there are those like you who believe a more complicated set of rules to live by and conform to is required for everyone.
Just because YOU apparently need a more complicated set of rules to live by doesn't automatically mean EVERYONE does.
Has it ever occurred to you that your holier-than-thou inclination to make others "conform" to your belief might result in your belief being viewed in a less than favorable manner that some may not necessarily take kindly to? In your own parlance, you may not like what you reap with the kinds of comments you're currently sowing.
Since you persist in equating your belief with logic though, please explain how a belief such as yours, which by it's accepted nature is obviously based only on faith, can be proven logically to be absolutely true.
by kibagami_genjurooo - 1. Look back where I first used that term and in what context.
2. By debating here you have the same inclination to make me conform to yours. It is normal.
by kibagami_genjurooo - Do you even read what I write?
My belief: church techings + message > message
Proof:
People murder, steal, enslave etc. How would his peaceful hippie society defended itself from these things?
If his teaching were so infectious and so thought through, then there wouldn't have been a need to defend against external (armies, slavers, barbarians etc.) or internal foes (killers, thieves etc.).
1. - This is why we've been getting nowhere. You expect everyone to conform to the way you BELIEVE things are.
2. - I've NOT BEEN TRYING to get you to "conform" to ANYTHING. You're the only person who has actually stated that as being your intention here.
Do you ever listen to anyone but yourself?
Look back where the main character first described his teachings and in what context. He offered a simple message of peace. If people followed it, there wouldn't be those who murder, steal, enslave, etc. You simply can't see that because you can't get past your OWN belief of the way you thinks things should or need to be.
by kibagami_genjurooo - In that context, not all did follow it (thus the need for improvement). Also in that context the Romans did won (thus not following it, thus many christians to the lions, thus fail).
So in that context, the main character DID provide an alternative, some chose NOT to follow it (the Romans), but in your view the main character is STILL to blame for the problems that arose.
Some would contend that it's not the message that is faulty, but rather the people who don't understand it because they think someone is trying to get them to "conform" to something...when even those who share your belief are always telling everyone it's a matter of understanding, giving up control, and a personal choice of "acceptance".
by kibagami_genjurooo - Yes, cause his peaceful alternative left those people vulnerable to the romans among others. That is no suitable alternative. And you can say that not only in regard to the character from this movie, but in regard to the real one also. At least the real one isn't around to blame the church (if he would, that is)...
...We should bring down all of our laws and see how fair it will be with some pacifist message of truth already proven that was not followed by all.
by kibagami_genjurooo - Personal choice of accepting another's view is to conform to it.
All of which still ignores the fact that there are examples of those who HAVE already "conformed" to the christian belief system (not to mention even some who are ranking officials promoting that belief system) exposed seemingly every other day for contributing to the very same ills of society they say they're belief system preaches against...
...leaving no doubt that the expanded list of rules to conform to that you're promoting has not been the end-all-be-all answer you keep claiming it to be...just more complicated...
And yet personal choice is not what you've been promoting. What you've been promoting is the use of force to get others to conform to your belief system for their own good.
by kibagami_genjurooo - Who cares? The improved churchy one worked at least.
by kibagami_genjurooo - ??? Do you argue for the sake of it? You already lost this one. Get over it.
Well, YOU obviously care enough to keep trying to say it worked anyway. The fact of the matter is though that it hasn't.
Right back at you buddy.
Verified. Wasted time.
shareIt really was a complete waste of time. Registered an account just to say how much of a *beep* retard that dude was.
shareYou registered an account just to state that you don't have any arguments?
God promises eternal life, we deliver it.
How I rose from the dead in my spare time so can YOU.
I'd like those minutes I've wasted back listening to a guy who thinks religion is logical and any/all society would fall apart without his specifically modified version of christianity.
shareDebate or STFU.
God promises eternal life, we deliver it.
How I rose from the dead in my spare time so can YOU.
Too nice.
God promises eternal life, we deliver it.
How I rose from the dead in my spare time so can YOU.
by kibagami_genjurooo » Too nice.
You might break your head.
God promises eternal life, we deliver it.
How I rose from the dead in my spare time so can YOU.
by kibagami_genjurooo » You might break your head.
Since you still persist on that path, it's more than obvious that I influence such actions.
God promises eternal life, we deliver it.
How I rose from the dead in my spare time so can YOU.
by kibagami_genjurooo » Since you still persist on that path, it's more than obvious that I influence such actions.
You never discussed anything. You started with some misconceptions that defy both logic and historical evidence and ended debating my freaking signature or tone when lacking any other argument. Objectively speaking.
God promises eternal life, we deliver it.
How I rose from the dead in my spare time so can YOU.
by kibagami_genjurooo » You never discussed anything. You started with some misconceptions that defy both logic and historical evidence and ended debating my freaking signature or tone when lacking any other argument. Objectively speaking.
Objectively speaking you wish.
Came back and read this six years later only to be reminded that some religious people believe religion-based "will" is the same thing as objectivity. Is it any wonder the church is so corrupt these days? (Rhetorical question).
shareYour quote here:
christianity was the only thing holding the society together.
Why the hell you wrote?
Christianity as any other religion is in the first place a social ideology. It gives order in the place of chaos. Donation were social constructive, since the church at that time WERE THE WELFARE SYSTEM.
Priests and Popes who were living in sin weren't widespread (or at least they kept the sins secret), since DEDUCTION DICTATES that such figures of authority would lose their flock, if not in name, then in spirit.
Manipulating was and is the only way, cause this religion is made TO INSPIRE! Unemotional, realist truth stating will not inspire anyone. That's why ALL religions are fvckin romanticist.
God promises eternal life, we deliver it.
How I rose from the dead in my spare time so can YOU.
wait, what?
Sorry, a year late, but I have to perceive kibagami_genjurooo's post as sarcastic, right?
Because there were NO civilizations, NO societies before the mythical crucifixion of this specific one of hundreds or thousands of "Saviours" who've been proclaimed over the millennia, this one in the eastern Mediterranean 2000 odd years ago. Nothing in Egypt, Crete, India, China, Turkey, South America, or anywhere else. The handful of heathens before Christ lived in small hunter gatherer families and anyone who wasn't immediate kin was dinner, because only Christ can civilize humans or educate them in ethics, or the logic that an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. In fact, that's why there is still nothing in southern and eastern Asia, just roving bands of scavenging savages. The paintings in Lascaux and Chauvet caves are modern forgeries, because without Jesus there is no art, imagination, or creativity.
OP: I agree with you. It was a very good little film up to that point.
"What's e-mail?"