Stopped watching after the Bible-Torah comparison - Heretic (2024) Discussion

[–] Jinx (3813) a month ago

The Bible DID use Judaism as the basis for Christianity. Why does it matter what Jewish people believe currently? That doesn't change the origin of Christianity.

Christianity was almost exactly how we view modern day Mormons in its early days.

reply

[–] Carlo (121) a month ago

Mormonism is not even Christianity. It's just one of the many heretic movements of the protestant revolution. It matters what Jews believe now because Hugh Grant is making the wrong assumption that Judaism is still following the Torah. It is not, as I wrote earlier. It stopped following the Torah when it adopted the Talmud and the Kabbalah.

reply

[–] Jinx (3813) a month ago

"Mormonism is not even Christianity" Christianity was viewed as a cult when it first emerged and much like The Book of Mormon adds onto the Bible, the Bible added onto earlier Jewish Holy text.

Christians are interpreted as 'followers of Christ' and Mormons are certainly followers of Christ. You are reacting to Mormonism just like the Jews did to early Christianity.

reply

[–] Carlo (121) a month ago

"Christianity was viewed as a cult when it first emerged."
Where did you read that? The Roman emperor of the time of Christ, Tiberius, wanted to recognize Christ as God. Most of the Roman emperors had no hostility towards Christianity. It was the Jews who were continuously fomenting riots against the Christians. The Book of Mormon was written by Joseph Smith. It has nothing to do with the Bible. It's an imposture.

reply

[–] Seperatrix (1308) a month ago

When you consider that a cult is typically considered as an upstart, a challenge to existing dogma or other religions it most certainly was a cult, initially.

As you mentioned, Mormonism is considered a cult because it deviates from what has been established as foundational core Christian beliefs (e.g., The death and resurrection of Jesus, the virgin birth, the second coming, etc.). In 1000 years, perhaps Mormonism will be viewed differently by Christians at large, perhaps not.

Look at it this way. The religion of Christianity started with 12 members, right? You'd hardly call it a major religion at that point. So whether you want to call it a cult or not is not as important as acknowledging its beginning. And what a beginning it had! So many differing views on Jesus, on God, etc. Look at the Essenes, Ebionites, Marcionites, for starters. So many "non-Christian" groups existed back then vying to be #1. It's quite interesting.

reply

[–] Jinx (3813) a month ago

Thank you, you have explained it much better than I am apparently.

reply

[–] tvfan (13737) a month ago

Derivative(s) do not equate to original.

There have been several derivatives falsely masquerading as Christianity; the most popular is the pagan religion “Catholicism.” … So no, Christianity is not a cult, but all false derivatives masquerading as some form/version of it are cults.

reply

[–] Seperatrix (1308) a month ago

I never said that Christianity IS a cult. The quote from the other poster was this:

"Christianity was viewed as a cult when it first emerged."

And that is true.

I'm not sure why this causes problems for anyone, even bible believing Christians.

reply

[–] Goliard (1440) 2 days ago

It "causes problems" because it's simply not true.

You can stretch the meaning of the word "cult" all you like, but the commonly-accepted usage today simply doesn't fit the claim you're making.
Just because a "religion" is new/edgy/departs from established dogma, that does NOT make it a "cult."

If you think about it, you could apply the same logic to ANY religion. Did they all start as "cults?" Absurd.

reply

[–] Seperatrix (1308) 2 days ago

"but the commonly-accepted usage today simply doesn't fit the claim"

Oh I don't know about that.

Christians today (generally speaking) consider any religion a cult that deviates from the seven or so fundamental tenets held by the faith.

But if you consider a cult that of a small group who followed a central and charismatic leader, with specific beliefs, practises, and other things out of the norm. Then Christianity was a cult.

Initially.

And btw, since you're a Christian, why would you care what "outsiders" called you had you been alive back in the day?

They were getting fed to the lions and not complaining. You throw a fit over a word used on a message board aswim in a meaningless subculture.

Grow a pair.

reply

[–] Goliard (1440) 2 days ago

LOL. . .you're amazing. Determined to make basic (wrong) assumptions, and incapable of processing basic facts.
I'll repeat: your definition of "cult" is all about your recency bias, and lack of critical thought. Whether you "know about that" or not (shrug).
Also: you clearly have no idea what "Christians today" consider to be a cult. Not even "generally speaking."
But feel free to continue making a fool of yourself. Again: (shrug).

reply

[–] Seperatrix (1308) 2 days ago

You know, for all your bleating and blubbering over this nonsense you’ve yet to offer your definition of a cult and exactly why you think early Christianity wouldn’t be considered as such.

I punch in “cult” and get these online definitions:

“a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.” And “a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister” and “a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.”

All of those definitions would have meant that Christianity would have been considered a cult by some in the early stages of development.

Not to mention, there was no one single group of potential Christianity’s that would obviously be the “winner” in the first 300 or so years. You had at least this many groups that we know of (there were undoubtedly more):

Ebionites: Jewish Christians who venerated Jesus as the Messiah who would restore an earthly kingdom for Israel – who believed in keeping all of the OT laws.

Marcionites: who believed, among other things, that there were two Gods – one evil and one good – and all one needed for salvation was belief – no Jewish laws required.

Gnostics – there may have been many variations on this group, but in general, believed each person would only achieve salvation by receiving personal divine revelation.

There was also the Qumran community occupied by the Essenes, another group called the Nazarenes, etc. All of the sects mentioned had splinter groups so the total number we’ll never know.

Then of course you had the proto orthodox group that finally won out and squeezed the competition nearly out of existence in the 4th century.

This is painting broad strokes and off the top of my head, but the point is that ALL of these groups would have been viewed as a cult by the Jewish mainstream of the day.

reply

[–] Goliard (1440) a day ago

You really are in slow class. "Bleating and blubbering" is what your wall(s) of text refer to, btw. Just FYI. In any case: you seem hilariously unaware that you're making my point: you just bleated about SEVERAL religions, all of which could as usefully been called "cults" at their inception. If you let your eyes drift up a couple posts, you'll see I said Exactly That: just about ANY religion can be painted with that same brush. Simple, yes? Of course not: you're a clown. Go sit down somewhere.

reply

[–] Seperatrix (1308) a day ago

Still no definition as to what a cult is eh?

You amuse me.

reply

[–] Goliard (1440) 17 hours ago

I don't doubt it. . .you're (clearly) too stupid to know you're Stupid. Shrug. Ignorance really *is* bliss. Enjoy.

reply

[–] Seperatrix (1308) 16 hours ago

You yourself present a good definition of stupidity.

Engaging in a conversation, telling someone they are wrong about something when they refuse (or can't) explain why. This would entail correcting me on what a cult is and explaining why I am misapplying the term. Then explaining your reasoning as to why I am wrong from that point moving forward.

The only thing you've offered is "by that definition every new religion would be a cult according to your definition." Ok, so what? That's not an argument against my understanding of what a cult is, you are just stating the obvious.

But then, you are clearly too stupid to have this kind of conversation. Excessively stupid. And I suspect too stupid to have any normal conversation.

Off to the troll bin with you.

reply

[–] Seperatrix (1308) a month ago

The root of the tree is Zoroastrianism via Egyptian hermeticism. Judaism branched out of Zoroastrianism while jews were in captivity by Cyrus.

reply

[–] Carlo (121) a month ago

No, Judaism was born way before Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism dates back to 600 b.C. while Judaism goes back to Abraham and Moses, many centuries before Zoroaster.

reply

[–] Seperatrix (1308) a month ago

I don't pretend to be an authority on the matter. But from everything I've read here and there about the period concludes that Zoroastrianism predated Judaism.

But let's say that they arose independently at roughly the same time just to get to the point in this film: Iterations.

The Jews were conquered by the Persians, so there is no question that the Hebrew religion absorbed (borrowed? plagiarized?) certain Zoroastrian beliefs. One good example would be the concept of a doomsday, when God would wipe out the current world and vanquish all in favor of one people. This was Zoroastrian thought. Along with Hell, a bodily resurrection, a new and better replacement world, etc.

Of course the Jews would later be conquered by the Greeks and later the Romans. Christianity came from Judaism of course and certainly borrowed from everything before and morphed their own beliefs out of the mayhem.

Iterations.

reply

[–] CaptBeefBlower (334) a month ago

What rankles with me is that Reed comes to the conclusion that religion is solely about control by looking only at the Abrahamic religions. Why are the polytheistic religions that Judaism evolved from excluded from his narrative? How could anyone come to the conclusion that Buddhism is primarily about control? Or Rastafarianism, Shinto, Jainism, Zoroastrianism or the many forms of animism? And what of the huge variety of thought within individual religions?

I'm an atheist, but I'm not anti-religion. Religion is such a broad topic, and while it's very often been used for the purpose of control, distilling it down to just that is an incredibly blinkered way to think. In fact, it's only possible if you start out from that perspective and cherry-pick evidence to confirm your belief.

Anyone who genuinely researches all the world's religions and sects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions) and comes to the conclusion that there is a single, overarching principle that all of them are actually about, one that is purely social in basis and not at all spiritual or psychological, isn't being honest. It's the sort of conclusion that 14-year-old internet edgelords come to and is far from original.

It was also an unsatisfying explanation for this film to use. As I've said in another post, Reed's motivation is far from clear or consistent. We have a man who has apparently set up a complex torture and murder system in order to convince tiny numbers of people that their religions are wrong because they all about control. Irony overload! Saying that strict materialism and rationalism can also result in zealotry, authoritarianism and suffering might be a point worth making, but I don't think that was the film's message. With most horror films, the lack of logic and motivation wouldn't be an issue at all - monsters do monstrous things - but when the protagonist is a rationalist who isn't rational, it becomes a problem.

reply

[–] Carlo (121) a month ago

Judaism didn't evolve from politheism. It had always been monotheistic, at least until the coming of Christ. After that, as I said before, it became something else. It rejected Christ and the Old Testament and it evolved into an antiChristian religion. Anyway, at least there's some honesty in your atheistic point of view. You acknowledge that the "religion in all about control" argument is basically flawed and that the authors are biased against monotheistic religions while they seem to spare paganism from their antireligious rant.

reply

[–] CaptBeefBlower (334) a month ago

Judaism may always have been monotheistic, but it most certainly evolved from polytheistic religions.

Yahweh was one of the gods of the ancient Semitic religions, which were polytheistic. Initially, he was a minor god of metallurgy and blacksmithing, and according to some sources even had a wife or consort, Asherah. Yahweh was worshipped by an Israelite cult first as the most powerful and worthy god, then as the only god (hence the nickname "the jealous god"). This cult is the precursor of Judaism. Yahweh is still the god worshipped by Jews, Christians and Muslims today, though he was probably conflated and combined early on in the development of monotheism with El, another of the Semitic gods - interestingly, one of the words for god(s) in Hebrew is El (or sometimes Elohim). Over time, Yahweh took on the attributes and some of the histories of all the other gods, becoming omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.

The following Wikipedia articles capture many of the details of the transition from polytheism to the Abrahamic religions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Judaism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahwism. A biography of Yahweh would make for interesting reading.

reply

[–] Seperatrix (1308) a month ago

"What rankles with me is that Reed comes to the conclusion that religion is solely about control by looking only at the Abrahamic religions."

But was he making a statement about all religions? I've only seen the film once, but I do recall his emphasis, as he put it, was on "The big 3" -- (Judaism, Christianity and Islam).

Having seen the film only once, I can't say with confidence, but my impression that his fixation, as directed to the girls, was one of "how do you know what you believe is true and how did you decide which one to choose?"

I'll have to revisit the film one day.

reply

[–] Seperatrix (1308) a month ago

Update on my own post, but continuing the discussion on whether or not the film stated that the film was "solely about control."

I thought to pull up the script and take a look this morning and lo and behold this statement toward the end of the film:

MR. REED
That’s exactly right. Religion is a
system of control created by men.

To be honest, after the first half of the film that I quite enjoyed, I started tuning out as the film went on. But scanning through the script makes me see that the second half is a payoff for things set up earlier (as it should be). I imagine I'll enjoy the film much more whenever I get around to watching it again.

I don't know the intent of the writer, but I did discover that his wife is a Mormon, that he showed the film to a devout Mormon and also an ex-Mormon and neither were offended. I think I also read, or heard, that other religious minded people saw the film and felt no offense. So I don't know how they took the "religion is a means of control" line at the end.

To be continued . . .

reply

[–] Seperatrix (1308) a month ago

As I alluded to in my previous post, I thought the film's protagonist was primarily concerned with asking and discovering "how do you know what you believe is true and how did you decide which one to choose?"

To that point, a line in the beginning:

PAXTON
Makes you think, what else do we
believe just because of marketing?
Like if you grew up being told the
Book of Mormon was fake, you’d
believe it was fake just because
that’s what you were told.

PAXTON
Anyway, I’m highly skeptical of the
Magnum thing, because I’m positive
people just believe what they’re
told by marketing.

PAXTON (cont’d)
Like... how has God shown you that
the church is true?

At the end of the film, she responds to the study that demonstrated the unreliability of prayer:

PAXTON
Lot of my friends were disappointed
when they heard that. But I don’t
know why. I think... it’s beautiful
that people pray for each other,
even though we all probably know,
deep down, it doesn’t make a
difference.

It’s just nice to think about
someone other than yourself.

Even if it’s you.

This kind of reminds me of the film Life of Pi, where at the end the question is asked, not "which story is true" but "which story do you prefer?"

Perhaps that is the message (if there is one) of this film. It's not about truth alone, but how we choose to cope and what we do with the options available.

reply

[–] Heretic (333) a month ago

"Anyone who genuinely researches all the world's religions and sects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions) and comes to the conclusion that there is a single, overarching principle that all of them are actually about, one that is purely social in basis and not at all spiritual or psychological, isn't being honest."

Um, it's not exactly like Reed was an honest character. He literally spent the entire movie lying to them about everything.

reply

[–] Seperatrix (1308) 7 days ago

Lying to them about everything?

Everything?!?!??

That religions morph as cultures collide and absorb one another (to varying extents) is hardly a lie.

Mixing lies with truths is always more effective generally speaking. But I don't know that much of his opening salvo on "iterations" when it came to religion was an example of that.

reply

[–] Heretic (333) 4 days ago

Yes, he was lying about everything. He was lying about his wife being there. He was lying about some of the things happening. He was lying about the house. He was lying about his intentions. He was lying about the pie. He was lying about not improvising. He was lying about how the girls hadn't come by when the church elder investigated. Et cetera.

This was a very central part of the plot and you must've not been paying attention very well if you didn't pick up on this.

The "iterations" were in some cases misleading, much like a similar scene in Bill Maher's "Religulous", though this was one was far more accurate and well done. Still quite an exaggeration, which is why he started to switch rapidly between figures to hide some of the deception.

reply

[–] Seperatrix (1308) 4 days ago

Oh I was paying attention.

I am also paying attention at your dishonesty. I questioned the idea that he lied about everything. You could have just offered that you were engaging in hyperbole to make a point, Instead you double down on it with "iterations were in SOME cases misleading." Which means in other parts they weren't. Which means he wasn't lying about everything. Which was what I was questioning.

The rant about Maher isn't interesting since that isn't being discussed. Perhaps that's a good topic to bring up on the Religulous board.

reply

[–] Heretic (333) 4 days ago

Apparently you weren't paying attention because one of the women even calls him out in the movie in the exact scene. Something to the effect of "You know what, you talk about things they have in common but ignore the differences like this guy having a freakin' bird head!".

Religulous has a similar scene that does outright lie which is why it's relevant. It is clearly an homage to it given how the cuts are done.

reply

[–] TiberiumKing (172) a month ago

being an atheist is an insult? lol. torah is just the hebrew word for bible you idiot. "ANTI CHRISTIAN" as if its a bad thing. all religiouns are trash. i know its makes you mad but youl have to deal with it eventually

reply

[–] Carlo (121) a month ago

Torah means "teachings". Bible means "group of books". You don't even know what you're talking about, shithead.

reply

[–] TiberiumKing (172) a month ago

you telling me you fucking idiot? i'm israeli. torah does not mean teaching. torah is the hebrew word for bible you fucking idiot piece of shit

reply

[–] Carlo (121) a month ago

Oh, you're Israeli? Then fuck your satanic race, your satanic state and your people of murderers and pedophiles. Over and out.

reply

[–] TiberiumKing (172) a month ago

your USA is AS satanic as israel if not more you trumptard piece of shit, just because i'm israeli that dosent mean i am responsible for my goverment, you just exposed yourself as racist,xenophobic, and anti-semitic

reply

[–] Carlo (121) a month ago

I'm not American, moron.

reply

[–] TiberiumKing (172) a month ago

dosent matter, you just exposed yourself as a xenophobic,racist,and anti-semitic. that all that matters here.

reply

[–] DarthAckbar (2181) a month ago

this might be the best reply I have ever seen

reply

[–] tvfan (13737) a month ago

Judaism does not follow the teachings of the Torah anymore. Modern Judaism is founded upon two books now: the Talmud and the Kabbalah, which are both esoteric and deeply antiChristian.

Yup, 100% True.

Oh, and they know, but this is pedowood; their cult, creed and doctrines are derived from the Talmud/Kabbalah/Zohar.

reply

[–] TiberiumKing (172) a month ago

your trump is a pedophile as well you trumptard

reply

[–] Pete314 (3117) a month ago

The Talmud - especially the Mishnah - is an interpretation, an exegesis of the Torah for contemporary use. To say that Judaism does not follow the Torah anymore is...what? A new form of antisemitism?

reply

[–] Carlo (121) a month ago

The Talmud has nothing to do with the Torah. It's an entirely new set of books, which contains insults against Christ and promotes pedophilia. I guess you didn't read none of them. It is reality. Labels will not get you far.

reply

[–] TiberiumKing (172) a month ago

it is does all what you said, but christ is an imaginary figure made up by the romans, and the fact that you are insulted by this imaginary figure being rediculed so much proves you are a white trash redneck trumptard piece of trash

reply

[–] tvfan (13737) a month ago

If Christ was an imaginary figure, why the ridicule and hate towards him and his followers?

reply

[–] TiberiumKing (172) a month ago

because you act like a bunch of lunatics? how does hate prove he was real? the romans wrote the new testement you idiot get a grip already. your religion is for nutcases

reply

[–] tvfan (13737) a month ago

how does hate prove he was real?

And how does hate and ridicule prove that he isn't real?

reply

[–] TiberiumKing (172) a month ago

there are many evidences that the new testemant was written by the romans

one of them is the use of the world "legion" while christian lunatics think that legion is the name of some demon, the word legion basically mean many, its a roman-only word. no one outside of the romans would use the word "legion" when they mean "we are many" this is only 1 of the major evidences that proves its a fairy tale written by them.

another one is jusephus flavious books, written when he was in rome after the romans embraced him. talking about the imaginary jesus. we all know jesus has no relevency to the judea revolt where jusephos is from so the only reason for him to include this part is from the romans who were his masters.

but of course, you, as the christian nutjob you are will dismiss anything. because, just as being said by the movie that religion is about control, you are brainwashed from birth into believing in fairy tales and there is no cure for you

reply

[–] tvfan (13737) a month ago

Nice story but that doesn't answer my question.

reply

[–] Carlo (121) a month ago

Keep crying and lying, asshole.

reply

[–] jriley555 (8388) a month ago

Carlo, here, has a wanna-be Moses complex, making cock-eyed pronouncements of matters he has only vague and faulty understandings concerning. Such as the ridiculous assertion that the Jews have abandoned the Torah.

Just as one example, Judaism of course DID evolve out of polytheism - Yahweh was the Jews tribal god, there were many others around, which of course the Hebrews, rubbing hard against the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Canaanites, were hardly unaware of, nor their creation myths which were imported more or less whole from Sumerian/Babylonian roots.

The Jews' innovation, if you want to call it that, was to denigrate all other gods in favor of their own -the only, in their view, legitimate/real one. They were history's first known religious chauvinists. :)

reply

[–] Carlo (121) a month ago

You're the typical guy who spreads the Zeitgeist bs and doesn't know anything at all about the history of Judaism and Christianity.

reply

[–] jriley555 (8388) a month ago

You’ve already spouted nothing but bullshit - if anyone besides yourself wants to point to an error in my assessment, let them.

reply

[–] Carlo (121) a month ago

"Here's your bullshit, idiot.
Judaism of course DID evolve out of polytheism - Yahweh was the Jews tribal god, there were many others around, which of course the Hebrews, rubbing hard against the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Canaanites, were hardly unaware of, nor their creation myths which were imported more or less whole from Sumerian/Babylonian roots."

Judaism was NEVER a polytheist religion. There was no evolution whatsoever, moron. It was always monotheistic.
You're just making things up.

reply

[–] TiberiumKing (172) a month ago

actually its you who does not know anything about judism and christianity

judism is just a mix of ancient pagan religions, babilonyan,cannanite,eygiptian etc..

the word elohim which means god come from the god of the cannanites who's name is EL.

you clearly have no idea whatsoever, christianity is just a more modern judism created by the romans because they needed a new tool to control their people

reply

[–] Pete314 (3117) a month ago

I totally agree on this.

reply

[–] DarthAckbar (2181) a month ago

then why did my nephew read the Torah out loud at his Bar Mitzvah?

reply