By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - Hollywood anti catholic bullshit needs to stop

irstupid on 08 January 2018
Fuchigole said:
SegataSanshiro said:

They have committed an insane amount of genocide in its history and did the same thing isis does now in destroying historical places. Not long ago it was found a few priests molesting young boys. Hollywood neither hates nor likes the Catholic church, they are just the easiest to write for when the script calls for something religious. Hollywood has often portrayed them as the ones saving the day from evil and when a script calls for it they are the bad guys. I'm not a religious person but I do live where mostly Mormons roam. I've seen far more agenda aginst them in TV and Hollywood due to so much ignorance about them. They don't have multiple wives. They are pretty normal every day people.

I'm a Mormon myself and yes we do get a lot of hate, mainly because ignorance, but I got used to it.

I think most people would like their religion in movies to have some input from a person in that religion. As the OP wrote, this movie was wrote and directed by Jewish people. I feel that anytime something in made fun of or painted in a negative nature it should have some oversight by someone from that religion/race/ect. It's like telling jokes. If I go up on stage and make fun of a ton of things/people/religions/ect, people will want me to be a part of those things I'm making fun of, otherwise they will be pissed.

I've always heard the best Mormon movie was the one that Trey and Matt Parker made, which makes sense seeing as they ARE Mormons. Not only does beign of something help you better tell a joke or paint it in a bad or good light, but to the audience it doesn't come off as hating.

 

But for the most part OP, get used to it. Catholics, or Christians in general are the White Males of Religion. The religion can be used whenever, wherever, however and by whomever and we can not say a thing about it.



Around the Network
Flilix on 08 January 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
Flilix said:

'Necessary being' sounds kinda vague, but it's a start of a definition. Do you believe that that being was only necessary for the origin of the universe, or also for its development?

In the Cosmological Argument, we are all contingent beings. That means humans are both movers (beings that can act and move/influence others) and moved (we ourselves are also influenced and our actions also depend on prior actions). This could be seen as a giant chain of cause and effect, in which we are both determined and determiners. This chain however, can't go on for all eternity. At the start of the chain, you need a being which moves, but isn't moved itself. Otherwise you'd get a causel infinity (which is the traditional Christian argument) or a temporal infinity (which is the traditional Islamic argument). Both are impossible in the past (actually, even scientifically impossible). This being which moves, yet isn't moved is thus not a contingent being, but a necessary being. Aspects of a necessary being are that if it exists, it could not not exist (since it is necessary) and if it doesn't exist, it wouldn't be able to come into existance (since then it would be a contingent being).

That's the Cosmological Argument is a compressed manner.

Could the Big Bang be considered to be that being?



ArchangelMadzz on 08 January 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
Flilix said:

'Necessary being' sounds kinda vague, but it's a start of a definition. Do you believe that that being was only necessary for the origin of the universe, or also for its development?

In the Cosmological Argument, we are all contingent beings. That means humans are both movers (beings that can act and move/influence others) and moved (we ourselves are also influenced and our actions also depend on prior actions). This could be seen as a giant chain of cause and effect, in which we are both determined and determiners. This chain however, can't go on for all eternity. At the start of the chain, you need a being which moves, but isn't moved itself. Otherwise you'd get a causel infinity (which is the traditional Christian argument) or a temporal infinity (which is the traditional Islamic argument). Both are impossible in the past (actually, even scientifically impossible). This being which moves, yet isn't moved is thus not a contingent being, but a necessary being. Aspects of a necessary being are that if it exists, it could not not exist (since it is necessary) and if it doesn't exist, it wouldn't be able to come into existance (since then it would be a contingent being).

That's the Cosmological Argument is a compressed manner.

Cosmological Argument:

There needs to be a being with no beginning to start everything, why? Because if not then the chain goes back forever, why can't the universe go back forever? Because I said so. Why does it have to be a sentient being? Because I said so. Why is this being the Abrahamic god? Cause I said so.



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

vivster on 08 January 2018
o_O.Q said:
vivster said:

I do think for myself and especially on my life all religions had a terribly negative effect on me. It pains me to even think that bullshit like that still exists in an age of enlightenment.

Christian religions are constantly trying to meddle in politics that affect my life, Islam is trying to kill me directly and while I'm not much affected by Hinduism and Shinto I know those aren't that well like in their respective states either. Generally it affects me by throwing my sense of justice out of whack since one crazy person who talks with imaginary people will be sent to a medical institution, while another crazy person who talks with imaginary people will get tax breaks and special state protection and for some reason major political power.

Common sense and basic science that are meant to advance humanity are constantly under attack by people who are allowed to say thinks like "you cannot disprove my god because my god cannot be disproven. Now give me tax breaks and political power because I believe in that arbitrary thing that cannot be proven". Yes, it affects my life and that of millions of others exclusively negatively.

everyone without fail believes in bs and the reason for that is not religion, its because humans are extremely limited inherently, so it is impossible for anyone to have a complete picture of the world 

that leads to gaps and we fill those gaps with assumptions that often are proven wrong and that goes for EVERYBODY, especially scientists actively working to discover new things

 

"Common sense and basic science that are meant to advance humanity are constantly under attack by people who are allowed to say thinks like "you cannot disprove my god because my god cannot be disproven."

as i stated above, common sense and science are in constant flux and yes they should be attacked and refined into something better as we discover more

and what if you're wrong? suppose god does exist? you can't prove it does not

Yes, science is under constant scrutiny and it should be that way. Science evolves when new information becomes available. Religion on the other hand is rigid and never changes. It still holds on to the same doctrine it had 2000 years ago despite advances in knowledge.

That's why people who are presented with good reasons why there might not be a god will still believe in god no matter what, while if you show any scientist solid proof of a god he will be the first to believe in it.

Science isn't a belief. It's a way of thinking based on solid proof or at least founded theories with lots of evidence. You don't have to belief in science, because what we learn from science has been proven with our current understanding of the universe. That is good enough to live by.

What's not good enough to live by is the belief that magic exist and some things we know today could be false. Science does not claim to have all answers, that's what religions do.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

ArchangelMadzz on 08 January 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
ArchangelMadzz said:

I'm sure there are genuine believers high up in the church. But there will be many that are there because they can profit from the belief of others.

Many priests who leave the church claim that they lost their belief years before they left and know others that are there that don't believe and see it as a business.

That's not very widespread amongst catholic priests now.

And what reason do you have to believe that?



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

Around the Network
WolfpackN64 on 08 January 2018
Flilix said:
WolfpackN64 said:

In the Cosmological Argument, we are all contingent beings. That means humans are both movers (beings that can act and move/influence others) and moved (we ourselves are also influenced and our actions also depend on prior actions). This could be seen as a giant chain of cause and effect, in which we are both determined and determiners. This chain however, can't go on for all eternity. At the start of the chain, you need a being which moves, but isn't moved itself. Otherwise you'd get a causel infinity (which is the traditional Christian argument) or a temporal infinity (which is the traditional Islamic argument). Both are impossible in the past (actually, even scientifically impossible). This being which moves, yet isn't moved is thus not a contingent being, but a necessary being. Aspects of a necessary being are that if it exists, it could not not exist (since it is necessary) and if it doesn't exist, it wouldn't be able to come into existance (since then it would be a contingent being).

That's the Cosmological Argument is a compressed manner.

Could the Big Bang be considered to be that being?

I've seen many people use that as an argument. It's possible, but only if you don't see the Big Bang as an event. In that case, it would also be a contingent event.



WolfpackN64 on 08 January 2018
ArchangelMadzz said:
WolfpackN64 said:

In the Cosmological Argument, we are all contingent beings. That means humans are both movers (beings that can act and move/influence others) and moved (we ourselves are also influenced and our actions also depend on prior actions). This could be seen as a giant chain of cause and effect, in which we are both determined and determiners. This chain however, can't go on for all eternity. At the start of the chain, you need a being which moves, but isn't moved itself. Otherwise you'd get a causel infinity (which is the traditional Christian argument) or a temporal infinity (which is the traditional Islamic argument). Both are impossible in the past (actually, even scientifically impossible). This being which moves, yet isn't moved is thus not a contingent being, but a necessary being. Aspects of a necessary being are that if it exists, it could not not exist (since it is necessary) and if it doesn't exist, it wouldn't be able to come into existance (since then it would be a contingent being).

That's the Cosmological Argument is a compressed manner.

Cosmological Argument:

There needs to be a being with no beginning to start everything, why? Because if not then the chain goes back forever, why can't the universe go back forever? Because I said so. Why does it have to be a sentient being? Because I said so. Why is this being the Abrahamic god? Cause I said so.

What was before the big bang is speculation, but even most scientific models go out from the hypothesis that there was simply no time before the big bang. A temporal infinity in the past is thus impossible, and that means a causal one is also impossible. I never said it had to be sentient, interpret being in a wide sense here. If you start from the concept of a necessary being, it has to be unique, ergo, there can only be one. That's not "because I said so". There is many a library written on the topic from all sides.



OneTime on 08 January 2018

No -  the Bible and the Church say that the Sun God Ra was not the same as the burning bush.  Archaeologists say they are.

 

your move.



WolfpackN64 on 08 January 2018
ArchangelMadzz said:
WolfpackN64 said:

That's not very widespread amongst catholic priests now.

And what reason do you have to believe that?

Discontent amongst the clergy is widely mediatised these days. I tend to follow what happens in the catholic church and one can not speak from vast discontent amongst priests at this moment. If there is discontent I've heard, it's mainly at the church as institution, not at their faith.



WolfpackN64 on 08 January 2018
OneTime said:

No -  the Bible and the Church say that the Sun God Ra was not the same as the burning bush.  Archaeologists say they are.

your move.

Did the archeologists do an autopsy on the remains of the burning bush?