The Truth of Messiah Prevails - Quo Vadis (1951) Discussion

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Pamfino 14 years ago

Piss off, you stupid little god-botherer, and go peddle your delusions and your religion some place else!

_____________________________________________
"I am not young enough to know everything." : Oscar Wilde

reply

[–] kronosq 14 years ago

Thank you so much for bringing Light onto these message boards, which were so in need of such propaganda.

Seriously - if you believe that these scriptures were written by a god, that god sure needs some serious help in the department of consistency and editing; something I would think a supreme being wouldn't be having so much trouble with if it means to make a clear message to humanity.

Trying to do anything based on what "God" has to say is an exercise that would lead to a severe schizophrenic crackup.

Please try it and get back to us.

reply

[–] cwente2 14 years ago

"...god sure needs some serious help in the department of consistency and editing;..."

Well . . . let us know your real name and when the next God elections roll 'round, we can write your name in. Fair enough? . . .

reply

[–] Pamfino 14 years ago

When the next god elections roll round? Good heavens, I didn't know that gods were elected! So if gods get voted in, I presume they can get voted out too. Do let me know when the next god elections come up; I'll be there, putting my cross in the 'None Of The Above' box.

_____________________________________________
"I am not young enough to know everything." : Oscar Wilde

reply

[–] kronosq 14 years ago

My name is Tony Heyward.

reply

[–] cwente2 14 years ago

Thanks. Good! Now ... if you really want to beat the incumbent, all ya gotta do is get yourself killed then raise yourself from the dead in just TWO days. Good luck, man!

reply

[–] Pamfino 14 years ago

And all you've got to do is prove there is a god! Any god will do, not just the one that your delusions are focused on. As Christopher Hitchens said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so all you've got to do is come up with that extraordinary evidence. Good luck, man! (By the way, using novels like the Bible as 'evidence' doesn't count as it was written by people as equally deluded as yourself!)

____________________________________________
"I am not young enough to know everything." : Oscar Wilde

reply

[–] furienna 14 years ago

By the way, using novels like the Bible as 'evidence' doesn't count as it was written by people as equally deluded as yourself!

Actually, the Bible isn't a novel. Its content was believed to be facts by the people, who wrote it down, and many people still believe it to be facts even to this day. Not to mention that a lot of its narrative must go back to historical events. But neither is the Bible a science book or a history book, since most of its stories can't be scientifically proved to be true (just like they can't be scientifically proved to not be true). So as strange as this may sound, as a religious scripture, it lies on the boarderline between fiction and non-fiction.

And another thing... Please don't call people "deluded", no matter how wrong you think they are. That only makes you look bad.

Intelligence and purity.

reply

[–] guely55 14 years ago

So is any of the dozens of religious books around the world and history!

reply

[–] kronosq 13 years ago

Ah the classic religious person's refuge: "You can't prove it NOT true."
Basically what this means is that if I say to you that I was abducted by a giant, taken to the land of Erhastren, fed golden eggs until I burst open and rained blood, died, descended to Itrenizes, the land of the dead, traveled up the holy mountain of Hereustoun, reentered my corpse and became a living god, you can't say I'm lying because you can't prove it's not true.

Can you imagine if we started trying cases in the justice system this way - randomly accusing people of heinous crimes and convicting them because they can NOT prove their innocence? Let's say I go out for a drive right now, and while I'm out a house gets burglarized and someone decides to blame me. Do I get convicted because I can NOT prove I was not there?

It just amazes me to no end how much these people will cling to that one religious belief that they think is the "one" over so many other options...and all because they are told that some book is the written word of a supreme being even though all of the authors were plain old mortals. Then they go off about how there is some actual history in it (yeah, because people wrote down stuff that happened while they were making up the myths!) and think that just because some of the places, people and events in it are real that suddenly this means all of the supernatural stuff is real as well.

Ever read Homer? For years people thought those stories were just pure myth until they found Troy. So the war really took place - does that prove that Achilles's mother was a goddess? Because that is what it says in the Iliad. By your logic, any book that contains real history must also be true in its mythologies.

But like any religious person you will find some fallacy-laden way to undo all of the logical points that we rational people make.

reply

[–] cwente2 13 years ago

"... we rational people ..."? A debatable point.

The "You can't prove it NOT true." usually comes in conversation "after" the anti-religionist demands of the religionist - "prove it". Of course, "rational people" understand neither point of view can be "proved" with inductive reasoning (the scientific method), which is what is always demanded, as questions touching on a spiritual or metaphysical truth simply aren't certifiable by looking into a telescope or a Petrie dish -- even as General Relativity can't be "proved" this way. Your legal analogy is wholly irrational for the same reason. And, it doesn't hurt to remember that the logic of the law, historically, has come from a society's convictions about principals which are born of spiritual or metaphysical parents (Eg., "Thou shalt not kill") in the first place. Just so, the "innocent until proven guilty" precept you laud comes out of this same religious tradition, while its reverse generally springs from an anti-religion, authoritarian tradition (Eg., the officially atheist Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, etc.).

Sorry, can't see how the Homer business relates at all.

Anyway, that's the best "fallacy-laden" response I can come up with this morning.

reply

[–] kronosq 13 years ago

In order for you to prove that the god, the son, etc are what they are exactly as depicted in the bible, you also must prove UNTRUE all of the other myths and stories that have been claimed throughout human history and all over the world.

The legal analogy works perfectly here. You're trying to twist the burden of proof around on those who deny the deity as you believe it to be. It's just like I said - you're allowed to claim that Unedowadadanga was the supreme ruler of the fifty kingdoms of heaven just because no one can find evidence to refute it. You're trying to insist that anyone can believe anything and that makes it ultimate truth just because it can not be proven untrue. This method can be applied to anything! I could tell you any story I want to tell you. Anyone could tell any story that they want to tell and because there is no way to DISprove it, they get to go on proclaiming it the truth. How on earth can a rational, logical person not see the horrid fallacy in such a concept?

I am NOT denying the validity of your beliefs. For all I know, the version of Biblical interpretation (there are billions of them) could be the correct one. But you can not claim victory just because no one can accurately refute you. Any one of us can make up an endless sea of stories that no one can refute. As I said, can you refute any other mythologies? Can you proof that there was never a Mercury? Never a Wakan Tanka? Never an Osiris? Never an Ishtar?

And no, The Bible denying them does not count. See, you can't disprove them just as I can not disprove Jehovah or Yeshua (Jesus.) So it's all fallacy.

Now as for my Homer. You claimed that just because the bible contains some accurate history, that this is supposed to lend credence to its mythic aspects. Believers do this a lot - historians turn up some site that shows that there were towns and settlements, people and events that were mentioned in the bible and then make it out like just because these things were real, that means that all of the miraculous stuff must also have been real. So I mentioned Homer's Iliad because it was viewed for years as something purely mythological. Scholars and common folk alike assumed that there was never really a Troy or a war that happened there. Then one day it was found. That means that historically there really was a place called Troy, and a great war really did happen there. But does that also mean that the gods were involved in it? Does that mean that Zeus and Poseidon took part in the events?

In other words just because historians have physical evidence that some of the people, places and events from the bible were really there, that doesn't mean that all of the mythological stuff in the bible is true as well.

reply

[–] cwente2 13 years ago

You are not reading my post thoroughly -- and you're mixed up. Thus, your entire post is based on a strawman argument.

We're dealing here with four terms denoting wholly different
concepts: "belief", "proof", "truth", and "evidence". Read my post again -- carefully.

The spiritual or metaphysical concepts in the examples you provide are the product of "belief", which is based on any number of things (Eg., "evidence", tradition, education, emotion, personal revelation, logic, etc.). Unlike in a courtroom, there are no accepted standards for determining which "belief" represents the "truth" based on the available "evidence". Therefore, whether the Judeo/Christian God IS God, or the Egyptian gods are THE gods, or there is NO God at all cannot be "proved", in a legalistic way, as being THE "truth". (Eg., I "believe" O.J. Simpson is guilty. A jury "believed" him not-guilty. He was freed based upon the fact that within the narrow framework of the law - which must be a practical and actionable framework based on "allowable" evidence -- he is not guilty.) On the other hand, no court would ever claim that it has found the "absolute truth" about any event, and no society would ever accept that the court's methodology will always reveal it. The court will claim only that "within its own workable yet necessarily limited parameters" so-and-so is guilty or not guilty. Alas, innocent men have been known to have been unjustly convicted. Not so with "God" or "no God" "beliefs" and with my earlier example of "General Relativity". There may be "evidence" pointing to the "truth" of each of the above but there CANNOT be "proof", of the kind you're looking for, of any one of them. You're "stuck" with "believing" or "not believing" in one or the other -- as your wits, emotions, reason, intuition, etc. may move you.

Sadly, you are looking for certifiable, universally accepted "proof" based on an inductive reasoning process which simply does not and CANNOT apply. Give it up.

In short:

"Does that mean that Zeus and Poseidon took part in the events?"

No, it doesn't. But neither does it mean they did not.

Finally, "spiritual" and "metaphysical" mean what they mean. "Physical proof" means what it means. The one does not rely upon the other for its validation. . . I "believe" that "Anthony and Cleopatra" is Shakespeare's greatest play. Now, try to prove what I "believe" is "the absolute truth" (or that it is "not") in a court of law with the expectation that everyone in the English-speaking world will agree with the judge's verdict. . . Good luck with that!

Best

reply

[–] kronosq 12 years ago

Wow, one can't even argue with you because it's difficult to figure out even what the hell you are talking about anymore.

I'm not straw manning you. I'm saying that to report your beliefs as facts is ridiculous, and then to try to say that just because someone can't disprove your beliefs this makes them valid is beyond the scope of even the most thorough of logical fallacy experts.

You're essentially saying this:

I tell a *beep* story, you say it's not true, then I say you can't prove it isn't true therefore it is true.

Now that is some amazingly twisted thought.

reply

[–] cwente2 12 years ago

Wow (to coin a phrase), you've missed the point entirely.

"Wow, one can't even argue with you because it's difficult to figure out even what the hell you are talking about ...".

With the "one" changed to "some" (and for "some", read -- yourself) that's a true statement. In addition, what you say "I" am "essentially saying" is, also, entirely wrong.

Try reading my post again. Eventually, it shall have been hoped, you'll catch on. . . Ah, maybe.

reply

[–] cwente2 14 years ago

"And all you've got to do is prove there is a god!"

I do? . . . Why? . . .

"... so all you've got to do is come up with that extraordinary evidence."

How 'bout the "extraordinary" harmony in nature and in the universe (Eg., E=Mc2)?

As for "delusion", well, delusion is as delusion does. Strictly a personal and entirely subjective assessment. No?

Btw, I'll write your name on the "God election" ballot, too, considering you claim a judicial-like omnipotence in "ruling out" (or "ruling in") certain manifestations of the opposition's evidenciary brief -- ahh, based on your own "subjective" (and, I submit, equally unprovable) prejudices. Now, now . . . is that fair? I mean, who died and left YOU the gavel?

The Bible a novel? First time I've heard that one. If you mean that as a quasi-clever slam (and I think you do), I'd say you coulda' done better. Rather sophomoric, not to mention tooooo obvious . . . don't you think?

reply

[–] furienna 14 years ago

People who have used the premise of this movie to denounce the truth of Christ have failed miserably.

Unbelievers have been vainly trying to destroy the Gospel for 2000 years but He still reigns in the hearts of billions & more are saved each day. Like it or not, Jesus is the only way to Eternal life and always will be no matter how the secularists rail against Him.

Quo Vadis is a very entertaining movie but it's just a movie, the way Peter Ustinov was just another actor with some tragically wrong views on life. Quoting his "wisdom" while ignoring what God has to say to us via scripture only compounds the tragedy.

Well, as you haven't returned to this thread for almost two months, I doubt my contribution to it will change that. But still, I have to reply to you.

I definately respect your faith. I believe in God and love reading the Bible. But I'm not sure about who Jesus was. I believe he was a great man, but I don't know if he was the son of God and the the Messiah. For how can I know that? I wasn't there to see him return from the dead or do any of his miracles. And the gospels weren't written until a few decades after Jesus's time on Earth was over, so how much can you really believe in them? So that's why I don't like it, when people say Jesus is the in only way to Eternal life and all that jazz. Yet again, I want you to know, that I respect the Christian faith. But I can't believe, that just because you're not a Christian, you will burn forever in Hell. It just doesn't make sense to me. Because then, not only today's Atheists and Agnostics would be affected, but so would millions of people, who never even got a chance to hear about Jesus, because they lived in wrong place at the wrong time. And there were people on Earth before Jesus was born. What about them?

And for being such a devout Christian, you really seem to have missed, that "Quo vadis" had a strong Christian message, so I don't know how seriously one should take your post in the first place.

Intelligence and purity.

reply

[–] ljspin 14 years ago

Furienna,

Just some comments to throw into the discussion. Of course, there is no way to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God. That is why it is a faith or belief, and why so many have a problem with Christianity. They want solid proof, not faith.

In answer to your question about those who have never heard of Jesus and their salvation, I can only speak from my own faith background. According to the Cathechism of the Catholic Church (which I have right in front of me) it states that the Catholic Church believes that those who have not heard of Jesus, but "try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience -- those too may achieve eternal salvation." Thus, the Church teaches that those who were born before Jesus or who have never heard of Him, can still be saved if they lead good lives. (I know this will freak out conservative Christians, but is what we believe.)

I am not a theologian, and, I must admit, am a little uncomfortable arguing religion. I'd rather be discussing classic films as much as we both do, but I wanted, as I said, to throw some thoughts into this discussion.

Spin

reply

[–] furienna 14 years ago

Yeah, I think St Paul wrote something like that too in one of his epistles.

Romans 2:14-15:
"For when Gentiles, who lack the Law, do naturally practice it, they are for themselves a law, though they have none. They show that what the Law requires is written in their hearts".

So already to Paul, it was definately possible, that a Pagan could be a good person and do the right things, even though he or she didn't have "the right faith". And if you read the Gospels, Jesus not only wants people to believe, that he was the Messiah, but he also wants them to live a good life. Take for example the story, where he talks about himself dividing people into two different groups at the Judgement day. Those two groups are merciful people and cruel people, not Christians and non-Christians. If some "conservative Christians" would be freaked out by this, well, I guess they haven't read the Bible as closely as they should have.

Intelligence and purity.

reply

[–] guely55 14 years ago

In other words we don't need to follow Jesus! Good!

reply

[–] cwente2 14 years ago

Sounds like pure sophistry to me. But, if you're serious, it would depend on what it is you're expecting when, as John Donne so perfectly expressed it, the bell tolls for you?

reply

[–] guely55 14 years ago

Sorry, I just don't share your religulous ideas. And, I expect nothing but pure and peacefull nothingness.

reply

[–] cwente2 14 years ago

Hmmm . . . why would you expect "nothingness" to be "peacefull"?

reply

[–] guely55 14 years ago

Why not?

reply

[–] cwente2 14 years ago

Indeed. It's what I'd call "flip philosophy" (as in let's flip a coin?). Not MY idea of the best way to look at eternity -- or, how best to get along in the world.

reply

[–] guely55 14 years ago

Well, to make it more simply to you: I expect after life the same thing that before life. That kind of nothingness. Your idea of how to look at eternity has nothing to do with mine. Just different opinions. I can "get along" with that.
Peace.

reply

[–] cwente2 14 years ago

Getting along fine is, well, fine with me. But isn't the issue more one of acceptance vs. conviction? I've thought that "same thing", too -- and often during the course of my life, though more often now as I get older. Mere acceptance of where and what I am has never been completely satisfactory to me . . . so, I'm less willing than you are, apparently, to let it go at that. I recognize there've been others who've looked for something more meaningful than the "same thing" concept. There's a richness of conviction in the writings and examples of many who have preceded us both. To make it "more simple to you", I find the most profound of these convictions in the writings and examples of Christianity, most especially in the singular example of its Founder. I recommend further exploration to you, assuming of course you're acceptance of the "same thing" concept isn't so firmly fixed in your mind as you assert.

"Peace" to you, too.

reply

[–] guely55 14 years ago

Well, i don't. Christianity doesn't make sense to me as a way of thinking or living. Much less protestant sects less then 200 years old coming from USA. There are so many and are so uninteresting and shallow.

reply

[–] cwente2 14 years ago

I guess it is. Well . . . good luck.

reply

[–] revsolly 13 years ago

"People who have used the premise of this movie to denounce the truth of Christ have failed miserably.

Unbelievers have been vainly trying to destroy the Gospel for 2000 years but He still reigns in the hearts of billions & more are saved each day. Like it or not, Jesus is the only way to Eternal life and always will be no matter how the secularists rail against Him.

Quo Vadis is a very entertaining movie but it's just a movie, the way Peter Ustinov was just another actor with some tragically wrong views on life. Quoting his "wisdom" while ignoring what God has to say to us via scripture only compounds the tragedy."

Very well put, and I applaud you for your courage. It is a shame that so many have/will vilify you for what you put forth.

Obamunism: The end of the Republic.
At times like these, I really hate being right!

reply

[–] jerann 13 years ago

Good to see someone here who believes. I guess it all boils down to this: "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."
--C.S. Lewis
If I'm wrong to believe in Jesus, then when I die...nothingness.
If you who don't believe in Jesus are wrong...uh oh.

reply

[–] rj-27 13 years ago

Yes, jerann. The claim of nothingness after death is nothing short of an eternal gamble.

However, should one "believe" simply on this premise? Or put another way, what kind of belief is it that is predicated solely on "covering your bases"?

Jesus, Himself, put it this way:"If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."

Jesus final work was to rise from the dead. Either He did, or He did not. This is and always has been, the crux of the matter for non-believers.

The reason Peter, Paul and all the martyrs depicted in Quo Vadis could go to their deaths without fear is because they had certain knowledge of the resurrection. Without it, they would have denied their faith and attempted to escape torture and execution.

reply

[–] ljspin 13 years ago

Your post reminds me of the words of St. Paul himself:

". . . but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength." --- 1 Corinthians 1:22-25

reply

[–] rj-27 12 years ago

Amen!

reply

[–] beresfordjd 12 years ago

Looney Toons!! God is a construct of primitive people to explain the inexplicable and to keep the masses in check.

reply

[–] cwente2 12 years ago

On the other hand, He could be the construct of "the masses" to keep the "primitive people" in check. Then, again, He could be the construct of neither.

reply

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin888 12 years ago

Yes, people like Isaac Newton where soooo primitive

reply

[–] rj-27 12 years ago

If God is a "construct", who, in your opinion, first introduced this "construct" and when?

Also, please define the term "God".

reply

[–] Druff 12 years ago

Unbelievers have been vainly trying to destroy the Gospel for 2000 years but He still reigns in the hearts of billions & more are saved each day. Like it or not, Jesus is the only way to Eternal life and always will be no matter how the secularists rail against Him.

The real issue is that so many people in this world prefer a warm and fuzzy comforting lie to the cold, hard truth.

reply

[–] cwente2 12 years ago

"The real issue is that so many people in this world prefer a warm and fuzzy comforting lie to the cold, hard truth."

To Christians, the real issue is that "the truth" is what it is ("I am the way, the truth and the life") -- objectively "comforting", frequently "hard", ever "warm", anything but "fuzzy" . . . and never "cold" (all of which is, of course, the point of the story).

reply

[–] rj-27 12 years ago

The real issue is that so many people in this world prefer a warm and fuzzy comforting lie to the cold, hard truth.

That's an interesting statement since that is precisely Jesus' assessment of the religious leadership of His day.

Jesus presents himself, not as a warm and fuzzy blanket of comfort, but as truth - which is for sure, cold and hard to those who would see Him any other way.

reply