2014-- The Year of Religious Movies?

[Ag0stoMesmer]

The following is a repeat post, re-posted because I don't think anybody saw it, or if they did, they deferred reflecting on its brilliance. :

Sorry man, I realise allot of that was me.

The book I wish they'd put on film is the Book of Job...., the Garden of Eden story in Genesis ...

Using my sunday-school-only level of knowledge of these stories I think the problem is that 'moderate' believers would object to the depictions of God they require. Tree of Life and (from what I understand) Noah have Gods that are 'Einsteinian' enough for non-believers but also agreeable to non-nutty believers. I think the stories you mention require something closer to the 'booming' OT God. Perhaps 'moderate' believers wouldn't like to see a God so different to their understanding and maybe resent it for giving ammo to sneering literalist-athiest-types (not that they need any more). Only guessing though, be interesting to hear if believers would be up for these.

[Ag0stoMesmer]

Just hear of this vaguely-religion-themed(?) horror: Home (2014)
Doesn't excite me though.

[Stewball]

The issue with Job is that God (meaning the pious human author of the book) tries to answer all the people asking "WHY?" God doesn't intervene to help the good and punish the bad. But all he has God say is it's none of your damn bidniss (in so many words). Revealed religion can have no answer to that question, because......wait for it.....if God exists, It doesn't interact in this natural universe in order to protect the free will It created the universe to spawn us with.

Therefore, all revealed religions are bogus, since it's obvious there has been no divine intervention since the Big Bang.

BTW, horror movies are a religion that is just as irrational as all other blind faith religions.

[ShogunRua]

I won't take scientific advice from someone who believes economics is one any more seriously than I would from a phrenologist or astrologer.

As usual, when called out on his stupidity, Agosto refuses to discuss the subject itself (and why not, being ignorant of thermodynamics and every other field of science?) and thus changes the topic with a lame ad hominem insult.

And do you really want to compare our backgrounds? I'm a graduate of Caltech with a degree in math (the language of science) doing economics research at a major university. You, meanwhile, are an arrogant, unfunny Internet troll too embarassed to disclose his education or job.

But of course, on the Internet you can pretend to be erudite and knowledgeable, no different than a child pretending to be a superhero. Actually, that's an insult to the child, who is probably smarter than you.

[Ag0stoMesmer]

wah, wha wah troll

[spoiler]I've explained to CMonster the mistake people make when saying science can rule something out, just read through my replies to him.

And do you really want to compare our backgrounds?

No, they are irrelevant.

I'm a graduate of Caltech with a degree in math (the language of science)

Speaking the language is one thing but, you know nothing of the culture.

doing economics research at a major university. You, meanwhile, are an arrogant, unfunny Internet troll too embarassed to disclose his education or job.

I'd say too humble to try and use reflected glory from institutions and past achievements to try and score points in a debate. Economics isn't a science though.

But of course, on the Internet you can pretend to be erudite and knowledgeable,

You pretend to be a scientist so why not?

no different than a child pretending to be a superhero. Actually, that's an insult to the child, who is probably smarter than you.

There are, I'm sure, many children smarter than both of us.[/spoiler]

[CMonster]

I've explained to CMonster the mistake people make when saying science can rule something out, just read through my replies to him.

Yes, you so thoroughly rebutted me with the classic common-sense-is-not-applicable-to-science defense. Truly, your powers of logic and reason are INFALLIBLE!

[ShogunRua]

Science disproves a great many things. Half-life dating informs us that the Earth cannot be 6,000 years old. Elementary thermodynamics shows that a perpetual motion machine is impossible.

If one doesn't believe in the power of science to make such statements, one simply doesn't believe in science, period. Amusingly, Agosto sounds a lot like a religious fundamentalist here, arguing for either creationism or a young Earth model, and claiming "science can't disprove" either.

[Mentaculus]

The following is a repeat post, re-posted because I don't think anybody saw it, or if they did, they deferred reflecting on its brilliance. :

The book I wish they'd put on film is the Book of Job. That's the Bible's Achilles heel. It obfuscates endlessly and still fails to address the question no revealed religion with an interactive God can: Why? Terrence Malick did a commentary on it, sort of, with The Tree of Life. I'm sure he wanted to be more blunt (ditto The Counselor and Her), but that comes under the heading of trying to make a horse drink.

Speaking of the tree of life, the Garden of Eden story in Genesis (gaining knowledge of right and wrong with the acquisition of full self-awareness; that is, awareness of ourselves, of the self-awareness of others, and of our inevitable mortality), is the best allegory in the Bible. They need to do that justice some day, but the literalists would all have a golden cow, at church, and then have to stone each other for laboring on the sabbath--especially if Adam and Eve were X rated, even though they were married. Hmmmmmm, maybe Dylan was right, "everybody must get stoned".

Ahem.

Now wait, were A&E married? Did Eve maybe cheat on him with some of those sons of God?

Could it even be called cheating (not fornication, which, btw, means absolutely nothing more than to have sexual intercourse), if they weren't married?

Even literalists acknowledge Matthew 12 regarding the Sabbath. It's holy, but if you're stoning people, you're missing the point. Or, Hosea 6:6 for some crazy vengeful Old Testament style God: "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings."

I think The Coens' A Serious Man is the closest we have to a Book of Job in film, and IMO I think it hits the themes dead on. Why? is certainly the ultimate question, and one worth constant exploration and refinement.

IMO the Bible's "Achilles Heel" [or, since I don't exactly ascribe to your opinion on the matter, perhaps my biggest personal WTF in the collected holy works] is Ecclesiastes. It's amazing, and I highly recommend a quick read. It shows cynicism can be recognized as a part of the human experience, and is not irreligious. Actually, it could be a serious part of a mature religious life. The closest I've seen to a film version of that book is Tarkovsky's The Sacrifice.

Back to A&E - married or not is not the point. It seems like most of the conflict/posts here on the forum is the conflict between sola scriptura and solo scriptura, and people, Christians and no, confusing the allegorical components of the Bible for a textbook, thereby ignoring the literary devices in place in these works telling us they're not historical [see: ShogunRua, above]. Job is also part of this tension.

[Stewball]

Elementary thermodynamics shows that a perpetual motion machine is impossible.

Yes, in this four dimensional universe anyway...I think.

Even literalists acknowledge Matthew 12 regarding the Sabbath. It's holy, but if you're stoning people, you're missing the point. Or, Hosea 6:6 for some crazy vengeful Old Testament style God: "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings."

How do you get to those points from executing a man for gathering sticks on the sabbath. Does God change It's mind? No, society does, and then ignores the lack of a stated authority for the transition, as well as the continuing question, Why?

I think The Coens' A Serious Man is the closest we have to a Book of Job in film, and IMO I think it hits the themes dead on. Why? is certainly the ultimate question, and one worth constant exploration and refinement.

I haven't seen the movie, which I'm going to correct, but in any case, it still doesn't face the fact that either God doesn't interact in the World--or God doesn't exist. Defending any revealed religion is to defend the indefensible. Job or Gopnik, the question still stands, "Why?"

IMO the Bible's "Achilles Heel" [or, since I don't exactly ascribe to your opinion on the matter, perhaps my biggest personal WTF in the collected holy works] is Ecclesiastes. It's amazing, and I highly recommend a quick read. It shows cynicism can be recognized as a part of the human experience, and is not irreligious. Actually, it could be a serious part of a mature religious life. The closest I've seen to a film version of that book is Tarkovsky's The Sacrifice.

I'm the world's worst cynic, but I'm also a romantic who ultimately hopes for redemption. I don't see that as a conflict either, but the pursuit of Truth overrides everything, and that tells me that revealed gods are a lie--and the religions of those revealed gods only response is, "Who are you to question god?"

Back to A&E - married or not is not the point. It seems like most of the conflict/posts here on the forum is the conflict between sola scriptura and solo scriptura, and people, Christians and no, confusing the allegorical components of the Bible for a textbook, thereby ignoring the literary devices in place in these works telling us they're not historical [see: ShogunRua, above]. Job is also part of this tension.

While A&E is the best allegory, Job is the worst, because it imparts no wisdom, just clerically imposed divine pomposity. And then we have the unreasoning literalists to contend with who'll go to war over all this crap, and create theocracies.

[Ag0stoMesmer]

Yes, you so thoroughly rebutted me with the classic common-sense-is-not-applicable-to-science defense. Truly, your powers of logic and reason are INFALLIBLE!

I was going to let the common sense thing slide as I thought you'd finally understood the 'negatives are unprovable' bit, ah well;
[spoiler]Try reading (re-reading?) A Brief History of Time and telling yourself at the end of each chapter 'It's all just common sense'. If The General Theory of relativity were 'common sense' it wouldn't have taken a genius to articulate it.

Thing is, we are discussing logic, that a negative cannot be proven is a maxim of it, one I've tried to explain to you again and again.

Science disproves a great many things. Half-life dating informs us that the Earth cannot be 6,000 years old. Elementary thermodynamics shows that a perpetual motion machine is impossible.

Science doesn't deal in facts, only probabilities, how many times? To believe thermodynamics disproves anything one must assume it is perfect. To assume it is perfect you must assume all of the assumptions it's built upon are also perfect. To believe such perfection has been achieved -or is even possible- is an act of faith by you, I have no such faith, I am sceptical.

If one doesn't believe in the power of science to make such statements, one simply doesn't believe in science, period.

I believe in the scientific method and it's ability to produce probabilities.

Amusingly, Agosto sounds a lot like a religious fundamentalist here, arguing for either creationism or a young Earth model, and claiming "science can't disprove" either.

No, saying something cannot be disproven is not to advocate it. When believers equate science with religion, when they say people only have faith in 'darwinism' it's thinking like yours -in thermodynamics- they are attacking. You sound like a fundamentalist.

Please Shogun, ask around some of your professors at Uni what they think of these statements;
1 Science does not deal in facts, only probabilities
2 Science can rule out nothing

I've never met anyone (attending or teaching) at a UK university -humanities, scientific or technical- who disagrees with these. I'm genuinely fascinated to know what you find.[/spoiler]

I think The Coens' A Serious Man is the closest we have to a Book of Job in film, and IMO I think it hits the themes dead on. Why? is certainly the ultimate question, and one worth constant exploration and refinement.

Thanks, I'd never have made that connection. Be interesting to see this again -with this in mind- some time.

IMO the Bible's "Achilles Heel" ... Ecclesiastes. It's amazing, and I highly recommend a quick read. ...The closest I've seen to a film version of that book is Tarkovsky's The Sacrifice.

Thanks again, added these to my ever-expanding watch and read lists.