Get Ready To Puke: Religious Dispatches Discusses New Film, "Son of God," in Context of Previous Film Fables

Views: 394

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"JC - The Sequel"  Subtitled, "A Good Day to Die Hard, and Come Back With a Vengeance. Now He's Pissed."

I'd like to see this film in which JC and Doubting Tommy are setting up a satellite dish using a compass and the hole through JC's hand. It's a navigational phenom!

We could go into the "Good Friday" mode where we quiz a theist about good friday. He tells us how good it was because Jeezus' crosseyed fixtion is what guaranteed our salvenation. Nobody could be saved unless Jeezus was nailed up. Yep, that was good!

Then our theist goes into another mode, crying like a baby because Jeezus got killed. Our theist cannot make up his mind. Good Friday was good, no it was bad, he says. Back and forth with it, he just cannot make up his mind. His crying goes on now "oh, boo hoo hoo. Boo hoo hoo." This is a real dilemma.

We slap him around and tell him to make up his mind - good or bad. He cannot decide. Then we tell him that the timeframe is off here. Do the math. Jeezus could not have spent 3 days and 3 nights in the ground. Then we admit that if we are wrong the Buybull writers could not do simple arithmetic. In the end out theist will think that he killed Jeezus!

And that's pretty much the way it goes.

For different reasons, different Gnostic sects saw Judas as a hero. Christian Gnostics understood that without the betrayal and crucifixion there would be no hope of salvation. The antinomian Gnostics did not even believe that the "real" Jesus was crucified. They thought that the God of the Jews was not Jehovah but Ialdabaoth, an evil demiurgos. Lke the modern-day Yezidis of Iraq, the antinomian Gnostics believed the world to be ruled by this evil deity and thus anyone who rebelled, from Cain to Judas, was heroic. Makes some sense when you think about it.

I agree with Pat, that more than anything it's a movie that knows it'll guarantee a certain number of ticket sales. Overheard my Born Again co-worker asking another Christian co-worker if she'd seen it yet (to my relief the answer was "no," but I'm sure she'll go see it too.) She said something about how it's based on the gospel of John and that she'd go see it again.

I nearly said, "If they do a movie based on each of the gospels, they'd have four completely different movies!"

Hitchens said in an interview that Mel Gibson's version was full of inaccuracies, something about how the Romans and Jews were portrayed, and that it basically furthered the agenda that Gibson had......whatever that was, I forget.

On top of this movie being primarily a business decision, I do wonder now about the historical accuracy, and how the writers/producers altered things to suit their own agenda.

Too bad nobody has the balls to release a movie about the established, historical FACTS of Jesus' life/time. The Life of Brian probably did it best, and it had to be a comedy (a damn great one at that.)

I'm always interested in the human Jesus, if he existed at all- there were many other preachers like him, but it's interesting how he managed to get all the publicity, longetivity and attention.


Hitchens' comment on Gibson probably dealt with the bizarre offshoot sect of Catholicism that apparently is quite big in Australia. The sect believes that the true villains were the Jews because they allowed Jesus to be crucified. This is the most asinine, ludicrous position one could take. Barabas was saved because it was traditional to allow a prisoner set for crucifixion to go free as a holiday concession. Sure, the Jews could have demanded the release of Jesus, but Jesus was not as popular as a common thief who defied Roman law and was thus viewed as a hero. Think about it, wouldn't you just as soon see Bernie Madoff released from prison as a child-molesting priest? Gibson is a nut job. He followed "The Passion" with a movie about the Mayans in the Yucatan, called "Apocalypto." It portrayed the Mayans as uneducated, bloodthirsty savages and as with the Jesus movie emphasized the violence. I think Gibson is a sadomasochist and actually gets off portraying torture and blood letting. Which reminds me, when Gibson was arrested on a DUI charge, he let loose with a stream of epithetical accusations against the police, laced with profanity as well as racist remarks. At one point he called the police "Jews." The Mexicans have a saying that apprently applies: "Only children and drunks tell the truth."

And now jesus has an 'IRISH" mother, Roma Rowney who wasn't touched by an angel, she's just touched

Rotten Tomatoes rates this "movie" at 22%. Richard Roeper gives it a D+ & states "that in all good conscience" he cannot recommend it. Not surprising as this film is just a recut version of the History Channel's The Bible Jesus episodes with a bit of extra footage.

I tried to watch The Bible but is was so bland that I couldn't make it through the first episode. However, I have seen the clip where Satan tempts Jesus in the desert. The filmmakers portray Satan as a cross between the Evil Emperor from Star Wars & President Obama. The actor playing Satan looks just like an older Obama. Give him a dark hooded cloak, pallid skin, claw-like fingernails &, voilà, instant Satan! 

Jesus! Feel the power of the dark side. Turn this rock into bread. BWA, HA, HA, HA, HA…




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service