|
FreudianSlippers posted:Someone should make a biblical film solely about the commie parts of the bible where Jesus tells a rich man to sell all that he owns and give it to the poor because no rich person will ever enter heaven ever and drives the moneychangers out of the temple with a whip. Bonus points if the scenes of money changers are intercut with lshots of giftstores and ATMs in megachurches and televangelists raising money for private jets. A communist atheist homosexual already made the best Jesus movie ever but it still had a bunch of miracle stuff. At one time Paul verhoeven was tryna make a non-magic Jesus movie, but that's clearly never happening.
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:36 |
|
|
Black Jesus has an episode where Jesus and his crew do a heist against a corrupt preacher played by Keith David  . That's about as we're going to get.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:A communist atheist homosexual already made the best Jesus movie ever but it still had a bunch of miracle stuff. He made Robocop in 1987, dummy
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:A communist atheist homosexual already made the best Jesus movie ever but it still had a bunch of miracle stuff. Terry jones?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Terry jones? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gospel_According_to_St._Matthew_(film)
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:A communist atheist homosexual already made the best Jesus movie ever but it still had a bunch of miracle stuff. Speaking of which, what did Pasolini mean when he called the said he was ashamed of the miracle scenes and compared them to Pietism? My knowledge of Pietism is not that deep and I can't draw the connection.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:Speaking of which, what did Pasolini mean when he called the said he was ashamed of the miracle scenes and compared them to Pietism? My knowledge of Pietism is not that deep and I can't draw the connection. Pasolini can be pretty fuckin' obtuse, so I'm kinda confused by it, too. That said, I think what it basically comes down to is this conflict you find running throughout his films between the 'poetic' and the 'vulgar'; which is actually this very classically Freudian-Marxist compromise between critique of capitalism and religion, and thus championing its death, while also preserving appreciation or perhaps as Pasolini would say "nostalgia" for the invaluable expression culture gives to the human condition. So when adapting the Gospels, Pasolini very much wanted to articulate a Christ that would destabilize the sanitized, bourgeois, even Roman conception of the figure; but in so doing he also wanted to narrate the film from the perspective of a 'true believer,' which would only be authentic if he kept all the miracle stuff. So when he criticizes his own Pietism, I think what he's essentially referring to is the reactionary, non-reformist interpretation of Christ myths - That Christ is literally nothing if he is not the authentic Son of God, that the miracles are window-dressing that act like honey to potential converts and which distract from the moral abomination of scapegoating and human sacrifice, etc. But you always have to take that conflict into consideration with Pasolini's railing against the conformity of Marxism itself, its own pieties and co-optation by bourgeois capitalists who know nothing of the abjection of the poor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5O3lvN3xEI
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Brad Jones is my spirit animal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/raycomfort/status/759056480481923072
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 10:21
|
|
|
You'd think whoever owns that house would have a nicer TV stand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 10:25
|
|
|
Why would an atheist care about the sin of idolatry? Why bother with conversion (or conversation) when you could simply otherize the out group, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 10:42
|
|
|
What is the question? Is it the Crocoduck?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:What is the question? Is it the Crocoduck?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
Local mom destroys atheism with one simple question! Microbiologists hate her!
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:What is the question? Is it the Crocoduck? Nah, banana as proof of intelligent design.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
When I went to university they were passing out DVDs similar to that but for abortion. The boxes said it was "one question" that would make you re-think the way you think about abortion. I did some research and the question was something along the lines of "If you knew you were going to give birth to literally Adolf Hitler would you carry the baby to term" so I expect the question for this movie is probably about that stupid. e: Looking it up, apparently the question is just to point to a book and say "Do you think the pages and ink of the book could have come together themselves, 'evolving' into the finished product?" And then he tries to say that DNA is like the ink and the paper. Because a piece of writing that may take years to finish at most is the same as an organic being developed over millions and millions of years Electric Lady fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Aug 2, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Electric Lady posted:e: Looking it up, apparently the question is just to point to a book and say "Do you think the pages and ink of the book could have come together themselves, 'evolving' into the finished product?" And then he tries to say that DNA is like the ink and the paper. Because a piece of writing that may take years to finish at most is the same as an organic being developed over millions and millions of years Yes, because only God can edit. Seriously, what the hell?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
Lame, I was hoping it was at least something new. That's not a scientific question at all, it's just a less interesting version of the watchmaker analogy. You can't even get a fun rebuttal title out of that like The Blind Watchmaker.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
Electric Lady posted:When I went to university they were passing out DVDs similar to that but for abortion. The boxes said it was "one question" that would make you re-think the way you think about abortion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 07:22
|
|
Forgall posted:Wait, isn't that an argument for abortion? I was wrong about the question! I researched it again this morning and it turns out the stupid was too much for me to store in my head without becoming crazier. First, the abortion question movie, "180", was made by the same guy, Ray Comfort. Second, the question was, "would you kill Hitler's mother, while she was pregnant with Hitler, if you knew that her baby was going to be Hitler", which is a ridiculous concept probably straight out of a schlocky sci-fi novel. He then goes on to literally compare abortion to the Holocaust. "Huffington Post posted:Creator Ray Comfort conducts interviews, asking people what they think about Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust. Responses vary from ignorance about who Hitler was to denial that the Holocaust took place. I am so loving angry right now. Electric Lady fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Aug 2, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Electric Lady posted:I was wrong about the question! I researched it again this morning and it turns out the stupid was too much for me to store in my head without becoming crazier. Motherfucker. And I wouldn't kill Hitler's mother because she did nothing wrong, and loving with our timeline is a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
It all stems from the same white alpha male power fantasy that is so prevalent in the US at least - where people honestly believe that they can effectively defend themselves and their families from nebulous dangers by owning a gun and being willing to use it on someone. Believing you could change history by erasing one person goes a long way toward not realizing how much momentum was going on toward a figure like Hitler doing exactly what he did and getting away with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
I'd like to make a movie about a Native American going back in time to stop the genocide of his people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDfySDiGeh8
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:I'd like to make a movie about a Native American going back in time to stop the genocide of his people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:I'm sure that if they just went back and killed Christopher Columbus' mother, nobody would have come and colonized Well, at least they'd have stopped a guy so evil even the Spanish Inquisition thought he was going too far. Edit: But really I'd go with the stupid alt-history take and have them bring guns and medical tech from the future.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
What would really help the natives is if the whole "90% killed by disease" thing happened in like 1100 and then Columbus continued as normal, because then there would be significant resistance to him and future colonists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
computer parts posted:What would really help the natives is if the whole "90% killed by disease" thing happened in like 1100 and then Columbus continued as normal, because then there would be significant resistance to him and future colonists. Huh, that is an interesting thought. Why didn't diseases brought by Lief Erikson and other early explorers take root? Maybe they did, but new ones came to exist later, or the later explorers just spread out a lot more so the diseases didn't have to migrate the whole way on their own? It's a fascinating question. Related: There's an interesting a CGP Grey vid that's partially about the diseases that killed the natives, and some reasons why the same didn't happen in reverse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
I always liked the time travel story about Christian time travelers going back to experience the crucifixion in person and having to yell for Barabus to be spared instead of Jesus to avoid a paradox, only to realize after the fact that the crowd responsible for condemning Jesus is composed entirely of fellow time travelers all doing the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
computer parts posted:What would really help the natives is if the whole "90% killed by disease" thing happened in like 1100 and then Columbus continued as normal, because then there would be significant resistance to him and future colonists. Guy Mann posted:I always liked the time travel story about Christian time travelers going back to experience the crucifixion in person and having to yell for Barabus to be spared instead of Jesus to avoid a paradox, only to realize after the fact that the crowd responsible for condemning Jesus is composed entirely of fellow time travelers all doing the same thing. Magnetic North posted:Huh, that is an interesting thought. Why didn't diseases brought by Lief Erikson and other early explorers take root? Maybe they did, but new ones came to exist later, or the later explorers just spread out a lot more so the diseases didn't have to migrate the whole way on their own? It's a fascinating question. Alhazred fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Aug 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
Guy Mann posted:I always liked the time travel story about Christian time travelers going back to experience the crucifixion in person and having to yell for Barabus to be spared instead of Jesus to avoid a paradox, only to realize after the fact that the crowd responsible for condemning Jesus is composed entirely of fellow time travelers all doing the same thing. Let's Go To Golgotha! I think
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
It'd be cool if said movie acknowledged "the Native Americans" were hundreds/thousands of tribes and states who didn't like each other or have much in common. Cherokee man travels back, successfully gives guns 'n' meds to his people, returns to find the Cherokee were genocided by the Natchez Empire that now dominates the continent. More on the thread topic, a interesting what if movie would be a world without Christianity. Good luck getting that made without being full dumbass evangelical or maximum fedora, though. Byzantine fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Aug 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
As in Christianity never appeared on the scene — no Jesus at all — or one in which it for one reason or another passed into obscurity? Are we still including Judaism?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 12:07
|
|
|
So, Years of Rice and Salt: The Movie? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Years_of_Rice_and_Salt?wprov=sfla1
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
It's kind of a tricky question to answer because a lot of stuff in the past two millennia has heavy Christian elements, but a lot of them have other dimensions that might equally be expressed under different systems. Like for example, Jews were often evicted from countries due to religious persecution, but they were also done so because the ruler owed a lot of money to them and they were the only people who could lend money. So even in a non-Christian environment those economic factors still play a role (though perhaps it wouldn't be Jews specifically who lend money if these non-Christians weren't so anal about usury).
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Trenchfoot posted:So, Years of Rice and Salt: The Movie? Please god no.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
There was also a novella by Kim Newman and Eugene Byrd called... something like The Tale of the Wandering Christian, where Constantine loses the Battle of Milvian Bridge and as a result of stuff I don't fully remember, Western Europe becomes Jewish instead of Christian.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:36 |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRqrcfHaDo4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QCGZ-1FMvk Assepoester fucked around with this message at 13:32 on Aug 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 12:56
|
|