March 28th, 2014
01:22 PM ET
Does God have a prayer in Hollywood?
By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor
Los Angeles (CNN) – Forgive Darren Aronofsky if he’s begun to identify with the title character of his new film, “Noah.”
Like the infamous ark-maker, the 45-year-old director has weathered a Bible-sized storm – and it’s not over yet.
Aronofsky’s epic, which stars Russell Crowe and boasts a $130 million budget (with marketing costs to match), rode a swelling wave of controversy into American theaters on Friday.
Despite fierce criticism from some conservative Christians, "Noah" was the top box-office draw last weekend, raking in $44 million in the United States.
Part Middle-Earth fantasy flick, part family melodrama, the film is an ambitious leap for Aronofsky, director of the art-house hits “Black Swan” and “The Wrestler.”
Both of those films were showered with praise and awards. “Noah,” on the other hand, has sailed into a stiff headwind.
Glenn Beck and megachurch pastor Rick Warren blasted the film. The National Religious Broadcasters insisted “Noah” include a disclaimer acknowledging the filmmakers took “artistic license” with the Bible story. Several Muslim countries have banned the movie, citing Islam’s injunctions against depicting prophets.
Even Paramount, the studio releasing “Noah,” has agitated Aronofsky, testing at least five different versions of his film with focus groups.
“I can understand some of the suspicion because it’s been 50 years since an Old Testament biblical epic has come to the big screen,” Aronofsky said recently. “And in that time a lot of films have come out of Hollywood that have rubbed people the wrong way."
Box office report: 'Noah' wreaks Old Testament havoc on its competitors
2014 is supposed to be the year Tinsel Town reversed that trend and finally got religion.
A decade after “The Passion of the Christ” surprised Hollywood, rankled liberals and raked in $600 million worldwide, big studios are backing a flotilla of faith-based films.
In addition to “Noah,” there’s “Son of God” from 20th Century Fox, which came out in March and is culled from the History Channel’s megahit miniseries, "The Bible."
In April, Sony Pictures will release “Heaven is For Real,” based on the bestselling book and produced by Bishop T.D. Jakes, a Texas megachurch pastor and multimedia entrepreneur.
The movie “Exodus,” directed by Ridley Scott and starring Christian Bale as Moses, is scheduled for December. So, too, is “Mary, Mother of Christ,” which is billed as a prequel to Mel Gibson’s “Passion.”
More biblical epics may be on the horizon. Steven Spielberg is reportedly in talks to direct another movie about Moses, and Warner Brothers recently bought a script about Pontius Pilate.
The box office hasn’t seen this many faith-based films since Charlton Heston delivered the “The Ten Commandments” in Technicolor. And that’s not even counting “God is Not Dead,” the indie sleeper that took in $8.5 million last weekend.
So what’s behind Hollywood’s religious revival?
“The biggest factor is the dynamic growth of the box office in international markets,” said Paramount vice chairman Rob Moore, one of the forces behind “Noah.”
MORE ON CNN: A flood of reviews for 'Noah'
Moore pointed to the $14 million his film has made in Mexico and South Korea, two of the more than 20 countries where “Noah” will run this year.
As Hollywood’s supply of comic-book heroes seems to run dry, studios know the Good Book comes with a built-in audience of billions. The Bible’s heroes and villains are jeered and cheered on nearly every continent. Its morally complex stories are rife with blockbuster-ready special effects like locust plagues, apocalyptic floods and talking donkeys.
But the controversy over “Noah” illustrates the promise and the peril of bringing the Bible to the big screen.
Yes, there’s a ready-made audience that loves the book, but will they tolerate a script that strays from Scripture? On the other hand, will increasingly secular young Americans flock to see films that look and sound like sermons?
"The earlier emphasis of faith-based films was to sacrifice quality for the message," Jakes said in a recent interview. "But it's dangerous to divide entertainment from evangelism. You're not going to connect with the average movie-goer if you're not putting out good stuff."
But even Jakes, a longtime pastor and film producer, said it's not easy to turn a religious text into a movie.
The author of "Heaven is For Real" has been adamant that the movie mirror the bestselling book. And Jakes cautions that the film's depiction of heaven does not comport with Christian orthodoxy.
"It's a little boy's vision of heaven," he said. "It's not a theological film by a council of scholars."
Like Jakes, Mark Burnett said he sees the silver screen as an evangelistic tool.
"We believe that over the next few decades, billions of people are going to see 'Son of God'," the reality-show producer said. "This is not just some film to us."
Burnett pitched his movie hard to religious leaders before its release. Evangelical pastors like Rick Warren rented out entire theaters, and Catholic bishops endorsed the film – which hews to the New Testament telling of Jesus’ life.
The Christian push lifted “Son of God” to No. 2 on its opening weekend in February when it made more than $26 million in the United States.
Since then, sales have fallen sharply. But Burnett cautions filmmakers against bowdlerizing the Bible to succeed at the box office.
“There’s a big price to pay for departing from the sacred text,” he said.
Just ask Universal Pictures, the studio behind Martin Scorcese’s “The Last Temptation of Christ,” which sparked outrage in 1988.
Not only did Christians boycott the movie, in which Jesus fantasizes about married life, some sent death threats to studio executives.
“These stories hit really sensitive areas,” said Elijah Davidson, director of the Reel Spirituality program at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California.
Noah’s tale is a prime example. Just four short Bible chapters, it’s more sketch than story: The protagonist doesn’t speak until the boat finally lands ashore.
“And yet it’s a foundational story for many Christians,” Davidson said.
For centuries, theologians have taught that God’s covenant with Noah and post-flood promise to be merciful prophesied Christ’s later arrival.
Building Noah’s arc
Aronofsky, who describes himself as culturally Jewish but not especially religious, said he respects how important the Noah story is for believers.
“We tried very hard not to contradict anything in the Bible,” the director said. “But we also wanted to bring the story alive for a 21st century audience.”
Wiry and intense, with a shaved head and a Brooklyn accent, Aronofsky looks like a man who’s just finished one fight and is girding for another.
“What’s been missing from the whole controversy is my personal passion for the film,” the director said. “I’ve been thinking about this for 30 years.”
When he was 13, Aronofsky’s middle-school class in Coney Island was asked to write about peace.
He penned a poem about Noah called “The Dove” that was recognized by the United Nations. (As a thank you for setting him on the creative path, Aronofsky gave his teacher, Ms. Fried, a bit part in “Noah.”)
Even as a child, the director said, the Noah story unsettled him.
Aronofsky didn’t see the happy tale of rainbows and doves told in children’s books. He saw the humans and animals consumed by the waters – the world drowning in the deluge outside the ark.
As he began his film career, the director grew obsessed with telling the Noah story from that perspective – and employing the power of modern special effects to portray Earth’s first apocalypse.
“It’s one of the oldest and most famous stories in the world,” Aronofsky said. “And yet it’s never been told on the big screen.”
There are good reasons for that. After all, it’s a dark story.
God, distressed at human wickedness, decides to hit the cosmic reset button. His waters wipe all life from the planet, except for the fortunate few on the ark. After the storm, Noah gets goodly drunk – perhaps the first known case of survivor’s guilt – and curses the descendants of his son Ham to slavery.
To understand Noah, and to give his character a story arc, Aronofsky and his co-writer, Ari Handel, spent 10 years poring over the Book of Genesis and the midrash – stories written by rabbis to fill out the Bible’s narratives.
They also read texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Book of Jubilees and the Book of Enoch, a work ascribed to Noah’s great-grandfather. Handel, who studied neuroscience, is known as an obsessive researcher. The script’s bibliography runs five pages long, single-spaced.
“We had to figure out how Noah and his family would get through this, and what it would feel like,” Aronofsky said.
The studio also hired a Christian consultant for the film. John Snowden is a former youth pastor at Vineyard Christian Fellowship Church, where Moore, the Paramount executive, is a member.
Snowden, who was pastor to Moore's son, said the filmmakers’ questions ranged from the sublime (Why did God create human life?) to the ridiculous (Would Christians be upset if Noah wears pants?).
“I gave them a sort-of manifesto of Christian theology,” said Snowden, 38, who now lives in Nepal. “The most important part of the story is why God created humanity, which is basically to reflect God’s glory. Those are the kind of conversations we would have.”
Script or Scripture?
Several evangelical leaders have posted positive reviews of the film, and, with the help of a Christian marketing firm hired by Paramount, are spreading the word that nothing in "Noah" belies the Bible.
But others aren’t so sure.
On March 16, megachurch pastor Rick Warren tweeted this message to his 1.3 million Twitter followers:
For the record, Aronofsky said he’s made the “least biblical biblical film ever made.” That is, don’t expect the camel-and-sandals settings of last century’s Bible movies.
“We wanted to smash those expectations, Aronofsky said. “We are reinventing the biblical epic for the 21st century.”
Count conservative broadcaster Glenn Beck among the unimpressed.
Before he even saw the movie, Beck, who is Mormon, called “Noah” a “slap in the face” to religious people.
“It’s dangerous disinformation,” he told his 10 million radio listeners.
After Paramount screened “Noah” for Beck last weekend, he acknowledged that blasting the film sight unseen was “kind of a dirtball” move.
Then he blasted the movie again, calling it a “$100 million disaster.”
Beck’s biggest problem with “Noah” was Noah himself, whom Mormons believe is the angel Gabriel in human form.
“I always thought of Noah as more of a nice, gentle guy, prophet of God,” Beck said, “and not the raving lunatic Paramount found in the Bible.”
MORE ON CNN: Is 'Noah' film sacred enough?
Jerry Johnson, president of the National Religious Broadcasters, said he has the same problem with Aronofsky’s depiction of Noah.
The Bible calls Noah a “righteous man,” Johnson said. In the movie, his character is much more complex.
Noah begins the film as a rugged environmentalist who teaches his family to respect the Creator and all of creation. As he becomes increasingly zealous, Noah seems bent on destroying life rather than saving it.
“I understand that the writers want to create tension and resolve it, but they push it to a spot where if you haven’t read Genesis, you wouldn’t know whether Noah is really a man of faith or not.”
Moore, the Paramount executive, said focus groups had similar questions: How much of the film is from the Bible and how much was invented by Aronofsky?
At Johnson’s urging, Paramount agreed to include a disclaimer before the opening credits and in marketing materials stating that the film is “inspired” by the Bible and true to its values but takes certain liberties with the story. (The language mirrors Dreamworks' disclaimer for “The Prince of Egypt,” which was based on the Book of Exodus.)
“People needed to know upfront that this is not a literal re-telling of Scripture,” Moore said. “It helped set their expectations for a movie about a guy who goes on an intense journey. This is probably not the Noah they remember from Sunday school.”
Aronofsky and Handel insist, however, that their film never directly contradicts Genesis, and even takes pains to remain faithful to it. The ark, for example, is built to the Bible’s specifications, down to the last cubit.
Ultimately, though, the director has little patience with literalists on either side of the believer-atheist divide.
It's ungenerous to insist, as some Christians do, that there is only one way to interpret Genesis, according to Aronofsky. But it's also pointless to argue, as some atheists have, that no ark could possibly hold all the animals.
The story of the flood has lasted for millennia not because it’s "right" – or wrong – but because it’s deep and alive and unsettling, the director said.
The artist's job, like Noah's, is to make sure those kinds of stories survive – to prepare us for the next storm.
About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.
Would love to see a Hollywood movie on the influence that Deism had on the formation of the country and it could be based on fact not fiction.
I would like the truth about the stated very clearly too.
Some of the most popular Founding fathers like Ben Franklin were deists,
but most were Christians. Here are the exact numbers
of US Founding Fathers_________Num of__ Percent
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed__6_____3.7
Even more important is the fact that they made sure we were not, nor are ever intended to be, a theocracy.
I agree. Christians set up the US very well so that religion was separated from the government. Now if we could just enforce the 1st amendment so that anti-theists don't stop "the free expression thereof"
Please cite instances where the 1st Amendment has been violated.
The newest conflict over Bible studies in homes in America arose in San Juan Capistrano, Calif., where city officials say city code section 9-3.301 prohibits religious organizations in residential neighborhoods without a conditional-use permit, a sometimes very expensive procedure.
“I was at school, and I got my lunch, and I was about to pray and say something to Jesus,” their daughter said.
Then this shocker: “My lunch teacher told me…’you’re not allowed to pray.’”
A group of students were told by officials to stop praying outside of the US Supreme Court.
The group of 15 Christian school students, there on a trip from Arizona, were confronted by a Supreme Court police officer and told that their praying was against the law.
So you want residential areas where other people will be affected by the traffic and parking to be exempt and free for you ? That's your example ?
Renee Griffith was forbidden to speak as a 2008 high school valedictorian because she was going to mention God and Jesus.
Griffith was asked, along with other students at Butte High School in Montana, to speak about what had gotten her through high school.
And anecdotal evidence is useless unless accompanied by a link to a reputable news source that backs up said claim.
Trolling apologist websites and posting that drivel really shows you are past reasoning on your own.
And btw, I can cite multiple news stories (with links) where Christian fundamentalists ARE trying to redefine government.
midwest rail wrote: "And anecdotal evidence is useless unless accompanied by a link to a reputable news source that backs up said claim."
Putting the links can be frustrating because it might kick it out and then you have to redo it. All of the stories were at one time on reputable news source. At least one about the supreme court was on f0x N3ws. For some reason it didn't like me trying to give you the link.
ausphor wrote " Wilbur Trolling apologist websites and posting that drivel really shows you are past reasoning on your own."
So you think that F0X News is a apologist website? Hmm?
wilbur, in almost every case where Christians try to claim that they are being persecuted, there are, in fact, other issues at work.
In the case of a home church, the issue is usually traffic related. We have zoning laws for a reason. When a weekly (or more frequent) gathering exceeds 10 people and roughly 5 cars, it can negatively impact a neighborhood.
In the case of being told you can't pray in a certain place, there can be a number of reasons, such as, again, traffic. I imagine you couldn't stand just outside the entrance to the tower of London to pray in a group either. And combined with "loitering" in certain sensitive areas, can result in the gathering group of praying folks to be asked to move along.
In a class setting, you shouldn't be doing anything that will disrupt the class. If you can't pray with a simple closing your eyes, bowing your head slightly and thinking the words, it can be disruptive. We don't know how that girl in your anecdote was about to pray.
There is also a truth that sometimes officials take things a little too far in either direction. It's a part of the balancing that is happening. Christian rights aren't being taken away, but those who aren't Christian are beginning to assert their equal rights. That can feel like you're being stepped on. You're not.
Sometimes when some people look up outside in the day they say the sky looks blue.
You don't even know how to post a link, put up or shut up. Where did you get the information for the list you posted about 204 founding fathers and their religious affiliation? You can also go to the SCOTUS website for information, much more reliable than FOX news.
Oh, the inhumanity...
#1: normal zoning regulations applied to all structures, regardless of use, permit was granted.
#2: one student, one "teacher" not identified, principal immediately agreed with parents instruction was wrong if it happened. This atheist agrees with the principal.
#3: the group was asked to move along under a general statute banning displays, processions, gatherings, not because of religious activity. A group of atheists would have been moved along too.
There is no orchestrated plan to curtail believers' freedom of expression. Any limits on freedom of expression (in the USA) have been done with the agreement of the US Supreme Court, you know, the court loaded with believers and not a single atheist ever.
Now let's talk about the systemic denial of rights by many religious organizations to individuals and groups, often individuals and groups that do not belong to a believer cult, or the same cult as the believers wanting to deny rights.
Sometimes when some people look up outside in the day they say the sky looks blue.
And sometimes they say it's cloudy or that the sun is bright or gee it looks like rain.
What does that have to do with the conversation exactly?
wilbur: "Christians set up the US very well so that religion was separated from the government."
Actually, it was the very moderate Christians heavily influenced by Deism that were able to quell infighting among Christian sects via the new government. Deists of that time generally did not believe in the divinity of Christ, even if a follower of his teachings, did not believe in the supernatural claims of the Bible, and did not believe that God played an active role in people's lives. Without the divinity of Christ, I would think it would be difficult to use Paul's words as some reflection of Christ and therefore of ultimate authority and as a basis for arguing, judging or waging a conflict against another sect, don't you think? The Deistic influence, along with the great education that people like Madison had were the reasons the government came to be in the form that we still follow. Note that after graduation, Madison remained at Princeton to study Hebrew and ethics under the university president, John Witherspoon. He became quite fluent in Hebrew.
#4: the Montana Supreme Court found in the students favor. The system works!
A group of students were told by officials to stop praying outside of the US Supreme Court."
The group moved off of GOVERNMENT PROPERTY onto the public sidewalk and continued their prayer. Of course the article's reporter had to throw in "they stood in the gutter" and prayed, in typical paranoid, persecuted, poor, pitiful Polly style.
(p.s. This incident happened in 2010)
It looks like Willie has gotten soft and left the building . . .
"So you think that F0X News is a apologist website" Not quite but I do believe they cater to the conservative side. They have been shown on numerous occasions to be the first to jump on conspiracy theories and to take the side of crazy people like Sarah Palin. I don't find them very reliable.
"The newest conflict over Bible studies in homes in America arose in San Juan Capistrano, Calif., where city officials say city code section 9-3.301 prohibits religious organizations in residential neighborhoods without a conditional-use permit, a sometimes very expensive procedure."
I suspect this a just a residential-only policy which would prevent commercial use with the intent of avoiding excess traffic and noise for example a Zumba instructor also could not use their home for classes as it is a non-residential use, or a motorcycle enthusiast could not repair and maintain bikes at their home. That is not anti-religion, no matter what Fox News tells you.
myweightinwords wrote:"In a class setting, you shouldn't be doing anything that will disrupt the class. If you can't pray with a simple closing your eyes, bowing your head slightly and thinking the words, it can be disruptive. We don't know how that girl in your anecdote was about to pray."
Your statement is factually wrong.
In both cases given, it was not in a class room setting. The little girls was eating lunch. She is a sweet quite little girl and the teacher didn't just stop her; The teacher told the little girl "praying was wrong." Those are the teaches exact words.
The other was a speech by a valedictorian. Also not in a class room setting. The only thing that stopped the speaker were the words God and Jesus in the speech.
That is what the little girl alleges. There were no witnesses. The little girl could not identify the teacher.
But Wilie, where is the grand conspiracy? And why can't you admit the system protects religious freedoms, no matter how delusional?
Wilbur, was the girl praying out loud or silently? Who needs extra indigestion because someone next to you is talking to someone that isn't there?
Where in the world did you get that list, not one Deist mentioned in your list?
And, it doesn't add up to the claimed total. Are we to a-s-s-ume that the remainder (29) were deists? That would make them the second largest category
Thanks didn't notice that. BTW the percentage numbers stated add up to 108.7% even with the missing 29. Garbage information from Wilbur.
I don't know where your numbers come from, but if you read the writings of the founding fathers it is apparent that their beliefs changed through their lifetimes. You can find Christian and non (sometimes anti) Christian quotes in many of their writings depending on their beliefs at the time.
The most influential men were not Christian through most of their adult lives. Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Paine, and likely Franklin and Washington (Washington was very quiet about his beliefs). Lincoln was also not Christian.
Also, of course, politicians of all stripes will suit their speeches to the crowd. One would not expect the same speech in Boston as in Memphis. In that day and age without rapid communication a politician could preach to the choir, so to speak.
Very true. But there are a lot of personal letters that are available that show that many had evolving beliefs. Deism was all the rage, then cycled up and down. But you're right, politicians will be politicians.
I am still a Deist perhaps a much more modern one, who can believe that a deity maybe just a scientific discovery that explains the question "we don't know".
Wilbur sounds more and more like Austin to me...is he a reboot?
And, Wilbur, you claimed yours a scientist; what field if study?
In none of your examples was anyone's rights to practice their faith infringed upon. Sorry.
It is precisely because of the non-h0mogeneity of the religious views of the founders that they saw the enlightenment ideas of a government formed of the people (rather than under God) and a country without established religion as the right solution for the country that they created.
It was the deists who drove this concept and the pious who recognized the worthiness of this idea so that their religious differences would not come between them in forming a new nation.
You have to remember that the religious differences between "Christians" 200 years ago were much, much greater than today's post ecu.menicalism religion where people (particularly Protestants) find common cause together. 200 years ago they had only just stopped killing each other over which brand of Christianity they adhered to and in the case of Catholic v. Protestant really hadn't stopped until 1815.
I'd be interested to know where you get the information that there is less difference between Christian sects today than during the founding of the nation. It seems counter intuitive.
Noah is simply more Jewish scribe fiction. Added details available upon request.
Authorship is in dispute. Many other cultures claim priority for the Great Flood story (and the God story for that matter).
You would expect many cultures to have a flood story if all humans descended from people that came off Noah's ark?
Science vs. the biblical time line of human creation i.e. ~200,000 vs.~6000 years ago:
As per National Geographic's Genographic project:
" DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who about 60,000 years ago began a remarkable journey. Follow the journey from them to you as written in your genes”.
"Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.
Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.
It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."
o More details from National Geographic's Genographic project: https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/
"Our spe-cies is an African one: Africa is where we first ev-olved, and where we have spent the majority of our time on Earth. The earliest fos-sils of recognizably modern Ho-mo sapiens appear in the fossil record at Omo Kibish in Ethiopia, around 200,000 years ago. Although earlier fossils may be found over the coming years, this is our best understanding of when and approximately where we originated.
According to the genetic and paleontological record, we only started to leave Africa between 60,000 and 70,000 years ago. What set this in motion is uncertain, but we think it has something to do with major climatic shifts that were happening around that time—a sudden cooling in the Earth’s climate driven by the onset of one of the worst parts of the last Ice Age. This cold snap would have made life difficult for our African ancestors, and the genetic evidence points to a sharp reduction in population size around this time. In fact, the human population likely dropped to fewer than 10,000. We were holding on by a thread.
Once the climate started to improve, after 70,000 years ago, we came back from this near-extinction event. The population expanded, and some intrepid explorers ventured beyond Africa. The earliest people to colonize the Eurasian landma-ss likely did so across the Bab-al-Mandab Strait separating present-day Yemen from Djibouti. These early beachcombers expanded rapidly along the coast to India, and reached Southeast Asia and Australia by 50,000 years ago. The first great foray of our species beyond Africa had led us all the way across the globe."
Considering that floods occur on regular basis, it's not out of line to think that every culture on the earth would have experienced a devastating flood at one time or another. Given the extremely limited information sharing ability available in ancient times any local devastation would have be thought of affecting much larger portions of the earth than what actually occurred. Given the fact that no scientific evidence supports a worldwide flood it is naive to state that various cultural flood stories support the biblical one of Noah.
A borrowed Babylon story.
Anything other than accepting Jesus Christ, is total failure.
Give us a break !!! Your Jesus was nothing more than a peasant/preacher/illiterate Jew who was raised to deity status by the likes of Paul, the first con-man evangelist!!
In your world maybe..not all are so weak that they need an invisible deity to guide them.
troll c word
So what some of you. Are saying is because I don't. Believe in the tooth fairy I should go around shaming and terrorizing kids who do because, by golly, I know they're wrong? I laugh at "atheists" who claim they don't need to follow God's commandments to be a good person. Really? So good people go around bullying others because they don't think the way you do? Bunch of tools is all you are.
Calling us tools and accusing us of bullying while doing the same...sounds like a typical hypocrite.
As for the 10 Commandments, enjoy:
Where is George Carlin right this very moment?
Dust...dead! Where else could he be??
TruthPrevails1, You can't think of any other possibilities?
wilbur: What other possibilities could there be? Given that there is zero evidence for anything after this life and for all we are certain of, once the brain stops functioning life ends there is no justification for thinking anything else.
TruthPrevails1 wrote:"wilbur: What other possibilities could there be? Given that there is zero evidence for anything after this life.."
Literally millions of people have died and came back to life and said there was life after death. How is that ZERO evidence?
wilbur: Cite your sources.
Sorry wilbur but if you're talking NDE's, they can't be counted. There are valid scientific explanations for them.
**Just to make this clear, if you fail to comprehend that article than it is very clear that you really have no interest in anything outside of your bible or anything that may make take away from the security blanket of your god and thus, the conversation ends...you can have your fairy tales-in the end no-one will ever know.
If there is one, he is in Heaven. According to my god we all return to the source "god" so everyone goes to heaven.
"Literally millions of people have died and came back to life and said there was life after death. How is that ZERO evidence?"
If you are referring to NDE's, then you are incorrect. They are called NEAR Death Experiences for a reason. There are no records of people suffering total brain death coming back to life (that I'm aware of at least).
" Does God have a prayer in Hollywood"
Just a guess here, but I'm thinking to Him, it's irrelevant.
Exactly, just like humanity and everything in the Cosmos is irrelevant to your imaginary friend.
And yet, you continue your tirades against Him with a ferocity that only reveals your acknowledgement of His existence. It's not that you doubt His existence, it's that you hate His existence.
Like it or not, that is the prevaiiingtruth.
I for one would certainly hate it if he existed. Sort of the same way I would hate for Hitler to still be around. Although, compared to God, Hitler is like an innocent preschooler.
No devin, you're completely off base here. I DO NOT BELIEVE and you can't claim otherwise. I have done my research and have found that there is nothing to support the god claims of the bible or any other god claims. I am merely pointing out the obvious and yet due to your own belief, you don't see that.
I don't hate that which I do not believe in. In fact I don't hate anything, hate is a powerful and harmful feeling that doesn't come in to my life.
To borrow your line: "Like it or not, that is the prevailing truth."
" I don't hate anything"
Your own words betray you. The palpable animosity that you direct towards many on this site who simply have a belief and faith in a supernatural creator, has been on display on a regular basis. I have always found it more than a little fascinating how individuals will spend so much time and energy vehemently refuting the faith of others. I personally reject the teachings of Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism etc... but I have no interest in spending my time attempting to prove them wrong.
Perhaps I was off base with my assertion " its not that you doubt His existence". In retrospect, I should not have made such a forceful claim about someone I really don't know. I apologize for that. You know what you believe and I'll accept that at face value.
Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. That " love your neighbor as yourself, bless them that curse you, love your enemies" stuff is pretty horrific.
I'm thinking the God Roger is talking about is the one that is part of the movie's subject; not the newer, kinder 2.0 version of the NT.
Of course it relevant to the arrogant god of Christianity.
“I gave them a sort-of manifesto of Christian theology,” said Snowden, 38, who now lives in Nepal. “The most important part of the story is why God created humanity, which is basically to reflect God’s glory.
In other words, the Christian god created us to grovel at his feet. That's not love, it's slavery.
The problem is the religious and the atheists are both wrong. The Bible is just one view of God, and it has many flaws. Yet the structure and complexity of the universe (including DNA) suggests it has an architect. So it's best to be open to all the possibilities. The religious need to get smarter and the atheists need to stop being so sure of themselves.
A sane post...there is hope after all.
If I were to try to be an Agnostic, and say, “I just don’t know if there is a god,” I would feel just as silly as saying “I just don’t know if there is a Tooth Fairy.” It’s not so much that we Atheists have ‘faith’ in the lack of gods, but we do have faith that theists accept fallacies as proof, most likely out of fear. This may be the same reason Agnostics will not profess true Atheism (the fear of being wrong). In the literal sense of trusting in evidence, I’m okay with being a faithful Atheist, but my faith is nowhere near the amount of unjustifiable faith required to believe in magical spirits helping us with daily activities.
"I’m okay with being a faithful Atheist, but my faith is nowhere near the amount of unjustifiable faith required to believe in magical spirits helping us with daily activities." – So if someone simply believes one thing, say a God created everything and nothing else, then would the believer be able to say the same to a non believer who believed in two things?
I'm sorry I have no idea what you are asking.
Penn says "In the literal sense of trusting in evidence...". The literal evidence of how we got here is, for the most part, a God or Big Bang. If you believe nothing else but one of those two things then the evidence is equal. This would discount what Penn says about unjustifiable faith because they would be equal and they would be equally unjustifiable. Penn's argument relies on believers actually believing a deity is beside them at all times and that is not exactly true.
Well first the evidence is not equal, there is a load of evidence for the big bang and no evidence of a deistic god, though I will admit that a deistic god is possible.
But I don't think it really matters, the deistic god and the non existent god behave exactly the same.
The actual evidence for the Big Bang and gods is not equal. There is huge amounts of evidence for one and none for the other. I bet you can't find a single scholarly article published in a reputable peer reviewed scientific journal that successfully concludes with "some god did it." It you have actual evidence for any god, let's see it.
"there is a load of evidence for the big bang" – Agreed. But there is nothing that fully, or somewhat convincingly, describes what was before that. Theoretically the Big Bang could have been created by a God.
And theoretically, God could have been created by the Big Bang.
"It you have actual evidence for any god, let's see it." – I don't. Never said I did. I have only said science has been proven wrong time and time again. Adjustments are made each time such as we now have globes once we figured that out so bravo to us for that. Point being that science is equally wrong about where everything came from at this point in time. We cannot measure, with tools or math, what was before the Big Bang therefore we can only guess. Maybe that will change in the future but it is what it is.
"And theoretically, God could have been created by the Big Bang." – That is correct. We simply do not know.
And I agreed theoretically the big bang could have been initiated by some god. But the evidence is not equal. While I can postulate such a possibility there isn't a good reason to "believe" it...believing something is hypothetically possible and being convinced that it is actually true are 2 very different things.
"Point being that science is equally wrong about where everything came from at this point in time."
No, science is not making unproven claims and asserting them as factual. If something is unknown....stating "I don't know" is not as "wrong" as making basless claims that you do know. One is honest the other is not.
"hypothetically possible and being convinced that it is actually true are 2 very different things." – Agreed. That's why I always say being created by a God is as hard to believe as everything coming from nothing in a Big Bang. Yet most likely one of them did happen. Up to you to decide which to believe. Up to me to decide which to believe. But neither of us should say the other is wrong if we disagree because we cannot prove it therefore we would just be imposing our will and that is never good.
"No, science is not making unproven claims and asserting them as factual." – LOL...it happens all the time. We have claims of cold fusion ever so often and perpetual machines patented and on and on. Please don't fool yourself. Science is still the result of man and can be fallible.
"Science is still the result of man and can be fallible"
Yes, unlike a 2,000-year-old book that never changed from supporting slavery and discriminations.
"Yes, unlike a 2,000-year-old book that never changed from supporting slavery and discriminations." – Come on. Where have I ever said it wasn't without faults. Of course it can have faults. In fact the whole thing could be wrong. I never said otherwise. I am Simply making the comparison that a science book and a religious book are both written by less than perfect humans so in theory could be faulty.
Didn't say you did. I'm agreeing with most of what you are saying.
"We have claims of cold fusion ever so often and perpetual machines patented and on and on."
Yes, and then science has the vetting process of reproducing results over and over so the bad information is excluded. Science is a process, science can be wrong. But then the process of science can be re-applied over and over for verification.
What is the vetting process for religious belief?
Exactly why do atheists need to stop being so sure of themselves?
Perhaps it displays their fears ?
What displays what fears?
Fear of what – Zeus.... Thor... The evil Christian god (that supposedly is all loving)?
Because they have no proof a God does not exist. They simply 'believe' it to be so. No different than a believer 'believes'.
No they don't. They disbelieve.
There are some who will categorically state "there is no God". You can label this belief if you want but most don't think this way.
Most simply do not believe in God.
What do these so called 'most' believe in ?
"Most simply do not believe in God." – That's my point. With no proof they have a belief. Or disbelief if you will.
Whatever they want to believe in.
Atheism is absence of belief in God(s). It does not require any orthodoxy of belief in anything.
They DON'T believe in gods. This shouldn't be that complicated for you.
Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy?
"With no proof they have a belief."
A belief in what?
So, not believing is believing.
"A belief in what?" – They believe God does not exist.
" They believe God does not exist."
You refuse to see my point.
"I believe that God does not exist."
"I don't believe there is a God, but can't prove it"
Are different. Yes it is subtle, but the distinction is important. The first is indistinct from faith. It is a positive assertion.
Does "I don't believe in Zeus" require proof to be what you assert is faith?
"You refuse to see my point." – And you refuse to see mine and that's fine and typical of the mindset of the believers versus atheists banter.
You stump me on belief. "I believe there is God but I cannot prove God exists." I believe God exists. Please explain to me the difference without distinction in those statements.
One either believes or does not believe there is God the rest are worse than the lawyer who asked Jesus then who is my neighbor?
I will happily stipulate that anyone who categorically says "There is no God" == "I believe that God does not exist" is making a statement that is indistinct from a position of faith.
This is different from someone who says "I see no evidence of God." == "There might be a God somewhere in time and space, but I don't see it" == "I don't believe in God".
Does that make the distinction clearer?
"And you refuse to see mine
I simply disagree. I understand precisely what you are saying. You conflate all atheists into categorical belief in the non-existence of God(s).
This is an inaccurate characterization.
"This is an inaccurate characterization." – Really? Perhaps I am wrong then. What is a dictionary definition of an atheist?
According to the OED:
atheist: One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God
agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of immaterial things, especially of the existence or nature of God
Disbelief is the key word, not (positive / assertive) belief.
And I thought 'denies' was relevant. Oops.
"agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of immaterial things"
HUGE difference between saying "nothing is known" and saying "nothing CAN BE KNOWN" if it applies to the future.
Perhaps merely an excuse to live how they deem is acceptable to them or in their view.
Sort of like that old battle hymn of 's-x,drugs and rock &roll'.
Transposed to 2014 terminology that would include legalized dope and men marrying men.
Cu.mulatively, humans in a society define the moral standards of the society.
Atheists and agnostics are "free" to reject the Bible's support of slavery and discrimination against women, gays, and the handicapped.
Yeah, that's the frightening part.
As someone who speaks from a life time of living among and around the dregs of society.
Jesus I ain't.
And here I had no idea that over half of America was atheist, because that's how many support marriage for gay folks. Huh.
"Perhaps merely an excuse to live how they deem is acceptable to them or in their view."
Do you believe and live according to the bible word for word? If not, then you are living as you deem acceptable to you or in your view.
The idea that atheists are somehow pretending not to believe in a god so they can pursue a life of sex, drugs and rock and roll, as you put it, is one of the more blatant lies from the pulpit. I live exactly the same way now as I did as a believer, except I don't believe in deities anymore (along with going to church and praying). I didn't suddenly start being promiscuous, shooting heroin or murdering people. In fact, now that the incessant guilt of religion is gone, my relationships are better than ever, as is my life in general.
I think you have the religious and the atheists confused. The religious are certain their god is real (though there are thousands to choose from) while the atheists are open to the idea of gods, they just demand evidence for their existence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And there is no evidence for any gods. That is why they call it faith.
I think you have atheists confused with agnostics.
agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. nor are agnosticism and faith. one deals knowledge (gnostic) and the other deals with belief
According to the OED:
atheist: One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God
agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of immaterial things, especially of the existence or nature of God
Arguably everyone (who is not delusional) is an agnostic at some level.
Atheists disbelieve the existence of gods. Interestingly, there are an infinite variety of things gods could do that would easily and unequivocally prove their existence to everyone. Yet, they choose not to do any of them.
"Yet, they choose not to do any of them." – We exist might could be proof or are you looking for a billboard or something?
The fact that we exist proves our parents had sex. Beyond that...not so much.
@Akira – Sorry...when I say 'we exist' I mean everything including the known universe. I'm not hung up on what has happened on this lonely little planet let alone who procreated.
Glad you cleared that up.
Atheism is not necessarily the affirmative statement about the non existence of god.
Wrong. And YOU need to stop "preaching" Chuch Lady.
Intelligent Design is nothing but a "god of the gaps" argument from ignorant people who don't know enough about how life began, and the chemical processes that led to DNA. Read "Climbing Mount Improbable". No gods needed.
"Science does not know how life started on earth" –Neil deGrasse Tyson
Exactly. There are multiple possible ways it could have easily happened with NO gods needed. See Nobel winner Dr. (Harvard) Jack Szostak's videos on YouTube. So I see YOU now accept the "authority" of atheists. Thanks for playing.
"I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject God, I want to know why 15% of the National Academy don’t.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
And yours is a position no more or less subjective than those mentioned.
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it."
hearsay is not evidence, wilburrrr
Horus also said HE was "the way, the truth and the life". He got there first. Tell your Jebus to get in line.
Alleged but not proven divine jesus allegedly said ...
Words written on ancient scrolls do not imply universal unalterable truths. Without corresponding evidence they are still just words written on paper.
Hollywood loves fiction, and the bible is a good source for that.
Kinda like that old day science scroll that used to say the Earth was flat.
What is interesting about science is that the process is self correcting. This is unlike religion which always claims it is right.
More interestingly, if both religion and science were wiped from our collective conscious, the new religions and gods that evolved would be completely different from the religions and gods we have today. Science, on the other hand, would be rediscovered and would be unchanged.
"religions and gods that evolved would be completely different" – I'm not sure about that. The basics of religion seems to be the same between say old Aztecs and Egyptians. Yet they were very unconnected.
Except the order of discovery would be different. Maybe not significantly but still different. It's an interesting thought to ponder what would our world look like if some discoveries came in a different order.
they can make all religion themed movies they want to attract the religious, I won't go. There are better stories out there than an obscure "man carried animals in his ship" blurb. A story needs to be believable to be interesting, and religion is not.
No offense but you sound extremely boring. You have no imagination at all?
Agreed. All species on Earth in a giant boat while a "deity" floods everything. One needs an extraordinary amount of imagination to believe any religion.
And the same kind of imagination to believe everything came from a Big Bang out of nothing. Who is to say which is right but one of them probably is.
"Big Bang out of nothing." – Says who? I don't recall there ever being "nothing" in the Big Bang
Imagination is not required, only gullibility.
imagination needs to be plausible.
Hey, it is a Bronze age myth, it is Hollywood, make believe, make believe, make believe.
"...But it's also ridiculous to argue, as some atheists have, that no ark could possibly hold all the animals"
huh? DO THE MATH!!
Every people in every part of the world has a flood story. It is a teaching story, it has nothing to do with math.
ones that make sense perhaps.
If you live by water, you will have a flood story. Just ask Kansas, Louisiana, Ohio.... But it is not the work of nefarious gods – just seasonal weather.
The stories I am talking about are not about floods. Noah's ark is not about a flood.
"Noah's ark is not about a flood."
Right. Noah's ark is about the BOAT in the flood. lol.
The Noah myth is almost a word-for-word rip-off of the Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet 11. There was no world-wide flood. All floods leave silt layers. There is no world-wide silt layer. There is not enough water on the planet to deposit a boat on Mt Ararat in Turkey. No non sea-faring culture ever once built a sea-worth craft, without a lot of experimental flops. It never happened. Get over it.
So glad to see the bible finally being regarded for what it is, a work of fiction. Most fictional books are adaptable for screenplay.
You can't really disprove it any more than someone can prove it. Not today anyway.
The Bible contains errors, contradictions and non-scientific nonsense.
I'm sure it does. Science books have the same issues. That's my point. Anything written by a human is subject to error. Doesn't mean there isn't some truth in there as well.
Name one error or unsupported claim in a scientific journal or textbook that even approximates "gods exist."
@hotairace – I cannot. That's kinda the point of my previous post though. The whole argument of who is right and who is wrong is insanely fruitless. Anyone who says the other side is wrong is saying it without definitive proof. Like a child would try to win an argument.
Call me a child all you like, but you cannot because "gods exist" is the big whopper, the one with absolutely no actual evidence.
How many scientific errors are you interested in? Here are two easy ones slapping those who use the Bible and geology:
In the 17th century, scholars mapped out the timeline in the Bible and guessed that the Earth was created around 4000 B.C. In the 18th century, geologists concluded that with shifting plates and such, it was more like 6,000 years old.
You cannot take every thing Colin says as fact. Regarding God here is a list of Nobel Prize winners that believe God exists:
Max Planck Nobel Laureate in Physics Protestant
Erwin Schrodinger Nobel Laureate in Physics Catholic
Werner Heisenberg Nobel Laureate in Physics Lutheran
Robert Millikan Nobel Laureate in Physics Congregationalist
Charles Hard Townes Nobel Laureate in Physics United Church of Christ (raised Baptist)
Arthur Schawlow Nobel Laureate in Physics Methodist
William D. Phillips Nobel Laureate in Physics Methodist
William H. Bragg Nobel Laureate in Physics Anglican
Guglielmo Marconi Nobel Laureate in Physics Catholic and Anglican
Arthur Compton Nobel Laureate in Physics Presbyterian
Arno Penzias Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish
Nevill Mott Nobel Laureate in Physics Anglican
Isidor Isaac Rabi Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish
Abdus Salam Nobel Laureate in Physics Muslim
Antony Hewish Nobel Laureate in Physics Christian (denomination?)
Joseph H. Taylor, Jr. Nobel Laureate in Physics Quaker
Alexis Carrel Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic
John Eccles Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic
Joseph Murray Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic
Ernst Chain Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Jewish
George Wald Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Jewish
Ronald Ross Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Christian (denomination?)
Derek Barton Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Christian (denomination?)
Christian Anfinsen Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Jewish
Walter Kohn Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Jewish
Richard Smalley Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
"Call me a child all you like, but you cannot because "gods exist" is the big whopper, the one with absolutely no actual evidence." – LOL...everything appearing from nothing in a Big Bang is a pretty big whopper itself. Yet the only proof believers and non believers have is to say we're here. You are indeed a child if you can dismiss anything as being remotely possible without having positive proof otherwise.
Post by 'believerfred' is an instance of the Appeal to Authority fallacy.
Fallacy Spotting 101
I notice when Colin and other militant atheists incorporate all sorts of logical fallacies in their posts you ignore them, is there a hypocrite fallacy?
Also, my post was not a fallacy as I only represented a factual list without suggesting the list suggests God exists. That was your thought or reason not mine. There is no fallacy in my post. Back to 101 for a refresher course may help you.
Your list included a lot of Jewish winners who don't believe in the SAME God that you do.
@observer – Same or different God doesn't matter.
So God and Zeus are the same to you, also?
The Jews hold a great many honors in science and medicine as do Christians. Jesus said the Father and I are one, if you have seen me you have seen the Father. If God were a prism the Father, Son and Holy Spirit would fill the prism yet you could see different attributes as the glory of God was refracted.
There is only God and man continues to explain the revelations of God in their lives. Even the Hebrew had different names for God to express attributes not a different God.
@observer – For the sake of this particular thread...sure.
Do Jewish people have a God who impregnated a married woman and had a son name Jesus who basically got all of Moses laws thrown out?
believerfred... too bad for you that's the Argumentum ad Vericundiam.
Everyone you name is NOT an expert in religion. They are NOT authorities in anything except their own fields.
Einstein made many mistakes. It's all irrelevant.
Religion is bit the field they are expert in. They know very little about the Bible, how it was cooked up, and Comparative Mythology.
85 % of the National Academy of Science are atheists. Does THAT mean you will dump religion ?
In short if there is only God then yes they do is the short answer. God is simply God being atheists and Satanists does not change anything you just happen to worship something or someone else.
God did not impregnate a married woman and the miracle of birth is just that a miracle by the power of God through the Holy Spirit. This also happened in the old Testament. The difference is that Mary was a virgin and remained a virgin until after Jesus was born. The laws of Moses were not thrown out and every letter of the law will be fulfilled.
"God did not impregnate a married woman"
Was she married? YES or NO? Did God make her pregnant? YES or NO? Oooops.
"The laws of Moses were not thrown out and every letter of the law will be fulfilled."
So we still have a LONG LIST of reasons why we SHOULD KILL PEOPLE? So Moses was right and women could be a prize of war?
I did not suggest that because these Nobel prize winners believed in God that God exists or that they were experts in theology. My list related to Colin who in his typical bashing of God stated zero Nobel Prize winners were creationists which was an 'argument from authority'. My list was to show the number was not zero but something greater than zero.
Although not evident in my post I can understand that in view of the thread it would appear I was supporting the veracity of Gods existence with a list of Nobel Laureates. I would not expect you to have found the Colin thread hotairace just came off.
"85 % of the National Academy of Science are atheists. Does THAT mean you will dump religion ?"
=>no, but it probably means I will not be invited to give a prayer at their annual convention dinner.
"Was she married? YES or NO?"
=>engaged to Joseph
Did God make her pregnant? YES or NO?
=>We don't know how she became pregnant only that the Holy Spirit and power of God was involved in the miracles. This is like the flood story where we have no idea how by natural laws the flood was feasible, how a virgin can be with child or how a 70 year old woman could become pregnant.
"So we still have a LONG LIST of reasons why we SHOULD KILL PEOPLE?"
=>I assume you refer to stoning for adultery and the like. These are time sensitive Hebrew laws limited to the culture of the day and no you cannot take verses out of their respected time and place. Just as some things Jesus said apply to the Apostles with him not ever Christian convert from that day forward. We change speed limits as conditions warrant would you suggest we apply the speed limits of 30 years ago today.
"So Moses was right and women could be a prize of war?"
=>Yes, in 1440 BC women were a prize of war. The alternative was to allow them to die and be subject to the barbarian culture around them.
Apply the scientific method to the Big Bang and Gods Exist. The Big Bang passes and Gods Exist gets laughed at.
King James Bible: "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily."
"We don't know how she became pregnant". So God may not have been the father and she got a Y-chromosome from someone else. God always took credit, but if you aren't sure who the father of Jesus was, let us know.
"These are time sensitive Hebrew laws limited to the culture of the day and no you cannot take verses out of their respected time and place.". Please tell us when the Ten Commandments expired. This should be interesting.
"The alternative was to allow them to die and be subject to the barbarian culture around them."
Good one. Actually, the alternative was to let the women stay with their families and not be carted off as toys for total enemy strangers as you prefer.
Your answers are always entertaining.
"King James Bible: "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily."
=>there was an engagement period before the wedding and yes he could have allowed he be shamed by dumping her but there may have followed serious harm to her.
"So God may not have been the father and she got a Y-chromosome from someone else. God always took credit, but if you aren't sure who the father of Jesus was, let us know."
=>from personal experience God just suddenly changes everything bang and I don't know how. I put this in the same category. Jesus had to be a Jew with a blood line to David and some how the local Jews who knew better than you or I could bought the birth right. If they did not buy it there was no threat from someone who was not a Jew or from the line of David. These religious types back then were worse than Westbrow Baptist fundies.
"Please tell us when the Ten Commandments expired."
=>Most cultures and times brought these basic rules forward, Jesus repeated them and our own courthouses had them plastered on the walls. I don't see getting stoned going on legally anywhere except Colorado.
"the alternative was to let the women stay with their families and not be carted off as toys for total enemy strangers as you prefer."
=>nope all the fighting men that could protect the women and young were killed.
Still waiting for you to explain how God got a Y-chromosome inside of Mary. Was he the daddy or NOT? Did he put the
sperm in her that fertilized her egg?
"These are time sensitive Hebrew laws LIMITED TO THE CULTURE OF THE DAY" – fred
Fascinating that you feel that women should ever have been PRIZES of war. Just don't ever claim that the Bible didn't DISCRIMINATE against them. Please tell me where God said that this was wrong and that the women should be protected and respected. NADA. NIL. ZILCH.
Iran and Iraq are the models upon which Christians are basing their theocracy.
If this is what they desire, they can move to Iran or Iraq.
Don't know if it's a revival. But you'll note how they want to portray certain characters as being good looking and forgiving of most.
And that would fit in with the narrative over the last several years of promoting marijuana use and the gay acceptance movement. It's more to do with let's create a God in 'our image' so to speak.
You'll note how they will never do movies about the social ills that plague a society of which the society in America is now heavily burden with from drug and alcohol abuse, to crime, poverty and mental illness. All of which come out of and from the late 1960's to the middle 1970's of social experiments that have failed miserably.
Now we have up to 3 generations so confused as to their role in society. Brainwashed and coheres with rehabilitation as the last refuge of a scoundrel in modern times.
Government an private corruption is acceptable, higher education as a business and the labeling and relabeling of mental illness to feed the psyche industry.
If you want Hollywood's version of God there is no need to spend the money going to the theater.
Just look around your own neighborhood, your work place and your hang-outs. Save your money and give it to charity.
"And that would fit in with the narrative over the last several years of promoting marijuana use and the gay acceptance movement. It's more to do with let's create a God in 'our image' so to speak."
You mean like how you and virtually all other Christians pretend to be blissfully ignorant about the Bible's endorsement of slavery? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that the days when people would invoke the Bible to justify it are long gone, but the words that they used are still there. Colossians 3:22 and Ephesians 6:5 are particularly damning because Christians can't fall back on the "but that was the Old Testament!" excuse with those; they're NT verses.
What I'm saying is, you do the exact same thing as those you point your finger at. You just like to pretend that you don't. As Mark Twain put it, "There was no place in the land where the seeker could not find some small budding sign of pity for the slave. No place in all the land but one– the pulpit. It yielded last; it always does. It fought a strong and stubborn fight, and then did what it always does, joined the procession– at the tail end. Slavery fell. The slavery texts -in the Bible remained; the practice changed; that was all."
Funny how we're seeing the same thing happen with regards to gay rights at the moment, and people like you lamenting it. Within a decade, gay marriage will be fully embraced and you'll either be lying about which side of the issue you were on or on the very fringes of society where all people of such mindsets end up after such progress has been made.
That's the atheist fall back, the 'old testament'. If they where up to speed they would realize that Christians since the days of Christ live under the 'new testament'.
Did you even bother to read my post? Like I said, that excuse doesn't work here. The verses I cited were New Testament.
"Christians since the days of Christ live under the 'new testament'
What did Jesus say about gays again? Remind me, I seem to have forgotten.
Don't ask me, I never read the Bible.
But it's still apparently a number one best seller.
Jesus said nothing about gays.
The "gay is sinful" mindset comes from Leviticus, which I'll point out (since you don't read the Bible) is in the Old Testament.
So no 10 commandments?
anything about the gays in them ten commandments there?
"You'll note how they will never do movies about the social ills that plague a society of which the society in America is now heavily burden with from drug and alcohol abuse, to crime, poverty and mental illness."
Without the glorification of all the decadence.
Your assertion continues to be nonsense. There are plenty of movies about negative consequences of alcoholism and drug addiction.
Why don't you look up "Requiem for a Dream" (2000).
Ironically, it was directed by Darren Aronofsky. (Does his name ring a bell?)
"Government an private corruption is acceptable
Corruption is never "acceptable" yet it is always present. Can you tell me when this was ever not the case?
Frank Capra's "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" was about business as usual political corruption. When was that made again?
Of course no one ever does anything about it all.
They make the sound bites while living in corruption themselves.
I wouldn't argue any differently, but you position that this is a recent thing and due to some kind of contemporary moral decline. It's not. Corruption, like any immoral behavior in humans, is a constant.
The line between moral and immortal grows thinner by the generations.
George Orwell, where everything is backwards.
Evil means Good.
Corruption is the new norm and men marry men.
Skip all the HYPOCRISY. If you ACTUALLY cared what the Bible says, you'd be more concerned about all the Christian ADULTERERS who commit adultery by divorcing and remarrying.
There are FAR FAR MORE Christian ADULTERERS than the total number of gays.
Ask me if I care, I don't, I never fell into that trap.
(single and proud of it)
The topic is HYPOCRISY, not your marital status. Please read more carefully.
Corruption isn't new.
I will grant you that there are many Orwellian aspects to our life today. Notions like:
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
WE ARE AT WAR WITH TERROR, WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH TERROR
terrify me, but there isn't more or less corruption because of the last 60 years of history. If anything the greatest source of political corruption today is the SCOTUS "Citizens United" ruling. It is an open door to corruption on a massive scale.
The most corrupt people in our society are those that profess to be the devout.
It has always been thus. Throughout history it has always been like this; it most likely will be.
We just know about it in an instant, instead of taking months to hear about it, as it did a millennium ago.
In other words, same as it ever was.
Oh, and I totally agree with the CU SCOTUS decision opening the door to massive corruption. The worst decision I've ever seen in my years of being alive.
It's always been a case of creating a god in their own image. Man has done that since pre-history. Nothing's changed.
I'm going to burn in hell for quadrillions of years I guess, but at least God loves me. Wait, what?
I used to be very tolerant towards Christians and their message until the radicals took over and began turning America into a theocracy. In the past, I might have gone to see this, just for pure entertainment. Not now. It's nonsense.
I just got back from seeing Noah .. trust me, fundies will hate it! Some things I liked others I didn't, but overall is was flat, took way too much liberty with the original tale to satisfy the fundies and not enough special effects to compete with a movie like Thor to satisfy us non religious just looking for entertainment.
That sounds similar to a lot of the reviews.
I hope they make a movie about this Satan character soon, I think that might be worth seeing on the big screen.
I'm sure the Republicans are planning to docu.ment Obama's rise and fall.
Actually, there is one that I know of and it was very entertaining. "The Devil's Advocate", starring Al Pacino and Keanu Reeves was most interesting...always thought that Satan was alive and well in corporate America.
That's the easy thing to see and say. And perhaps.
But if you believe that then you must come to an understanding that the evidence of that belief is even stronger among the dregs of society.
i.e. the low-lives, the drunks, druggies, criminals, the whors and a host of other malcontents and deviant's.
Which has often been mention as the place and people this Jesus liked to hang out at and with.
Based on the ignorance level of the day ? And we are talking ancient dumb here. Who knows, because while the current Bible shows people who knew how to write and articulate those writing have been re-translated several times over the centuries that no one really knows what the intelligent level was even of the so called original observers/writers.
Point is if one is to say they believe in a Satan then it follows that they would believe in a God.
Have you ever seen the movie "Bedazzled"? If Satan looks like Elizabeth Hurley, I can't wait to go to hell.
Yes, I could do time with Elizabeth Hurley
The fact that most of this country believes the Noah's ark story is factual and historically accurate is scary.
It's worse than that, in the midwest they have MUSEUMS showing dinosaurs and Humans co-existing, and busloads of school children visit!! I almost vomited everywhere it was so disturbing.
Ken Ham. Lmao
Civilized people still worship gods? How 1st century.
Ramen brother, Ramen.
Nope, just one God. The only God.
Can I get a hoorah for the one and only .. RA!
I always thought Tiamat had it going on...
There are thousands of gods to choose from. And one day soon, the Christian god will be grouped with all the other gods we commonly refer to as mythology.
Hollywood and the rest of the far left media are consistently anti-God, anti-morals, and anti-Christian. Sad!
lol. It's the HYPOCRITICAL RIGHT that loves the Hollywood people and vote them into office for their party.
Anti god is a good thing.
Anti christian is a good thing.
Anti morals is a bad thing. Get a life and lose the 1st century ignorance.
Actually, I hope you didn't mean that. The 1st century was pretty brutal period .... probably less brutal than what's coming soon. Perhaps you should reevaluate your relationship with the one that can ultimately save you.
My golden retriever?
You do understand that if you had been born in Bhutan or Saudi Arabia you would have an entirely different set of gods/God don't you? (but I believe also ones that would promise you life after death which is the real hook for theists)
Claiming to have a "relationship" with a dead person is delusional and requires professional help.
This whole concept of saving that you have been mislead to believe you require is exactly what holds society back. Christians are taught that we are fallen and that the earth was put here for our convenience-to use, abuse and over-populate until their imaginary friend jesus returns from imaginary sky land, accepts the believers and fixes all the problems. Fortunately not all of us are so gullible.