And I enjoyed this movie very much so. Splendid acting, beautiful cinematography and a awesome story. Gave it a solid 9.
Any other non believers enjoyed this movie as well?
Jesus loves you!
I belong to Jesus: my Lord, Savior, my eternity, my everything. I love you, Jesus!
I tend to watch either this or Ben-Hur at Christmas. Watching it now as it happens.
There's something about the old technicolor era of films that I've always liked.
Hi Rekaert, if theres no God.
Where did we come from.
Hi Marty. I assume you're asking me if I know the origin of life?
I can quote the scientific view, which is the current scenario that fits the facts, but personally, no idea.
I find I get along just fine without knowing for sure, and by admitted that we're not fallible in what we know, it gives others plenty of incentive to go and find out.
Not sure if that answer satisfies your question or not.
I can quote the scientific view, which is the current scenario that fits the facts, but personally, no idea.
I find I get along just fine without knowing for sure
On the big-bang topic and a potential cause to it, we have to confess ignorance, don't we? Unless we find a 'cause', then anything else is speculation. Sure, we can say accident, or random chance, or an invitable consequence of a galactic process that was 100% inevitable and occurred naturally, or God, or pan-dimensional alien, or ... whatever we can imagine.
What separates speculation from accepted fact? Evidence.
Let's say there is sentience as the cause, something ineffable and so far beyond us as mere physical beings, we struggle to comprehend, let alone explain it. Let us say, for sake of discussion, that something with intelligence set it in motion.
How do we know that this is the case? Do we have evidence for it?
You have a soul. Everyone has a soul. (look at a classic movie, or a work of art, or a beutiful piece of composed music) that proves we have a soul.
Scientific thinking is predicated on observation, evidence, and experimentation. Ask Bacon. The first rule of science is -- for every event there must be a cause. Thus, the theory suggesting a "Big Bang" origin of both time and space makes the scepticism re the existence of a supernatural entity (God) more tendencious. To wit -- what caused the bang? A tough (impossible?) question to get answered -- in purely scientific terms.
shareOh, I don't doubt there is a cause. The issue is whether that cause is natural or supernatural. If there's insufficient information to make a sound judgement, I'd rather just wait until there is before judging.
If that doesn't happen in my lifetime - I'm ok with that.
As you say, the question of what caused the big bang is tough, perhaps impossible to answer correctly - in purely scientific terms, or indeed otherwise. Any answer we build must rest on the foundation of sound evidence. In the absence of that, we're just making it up as we go, and to keep my analogy going, the answer we build has unstable foundations.
But, my friend, how can there be a "natural" (by any definition we can understand) cause when there is no space and no time at all? The answer must be SUPERnatural.
shareWell without this turning into a semantic discussion, what we're talking about is whether a sentient hand directed the event, or not.
"Well without this turning into a semantic discussion, what we're talking about is whether a sentient hand directed the event or not."
Certainly, that is true. But, one can't have such a discussion without an "understanding" of the meaning of the words we are using (semantics). I mean, without a care for the semantics, we get confusion and "misunderstanding" -- no? In short, we'd be sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind -- ah, so to speak.
Sure, but minor definition confusion shouldn't be too much of an odious barrier. If I feel we're both using the same word in two different ways, I'll either clarify at my end, or ask that you do so at yours. English is a versatile language after all, with many subtleties.
Supernatural can imply God, but it doesn't have to.
However, what word we use is less important to me than how you then go on to define it. So, if you want to apply supernatural to the universe's origin, I'm game.
Though my next question then inevitably has to be, what do you mean by that? Do you mean that 'nature' began after the big bang, and therefore anything before it was paranormal - scuse me, supernatural?
Or, do you mean there was sentient direction involved guiding the process with intent?
"Supernatural can imply God, but it doesn't have to."
Quite true.
"Do you mean that 'nature' began after the big bang ...?"
Yes.
"... do you mean there was sentient direction involved guiding the process?"
I mean there may have been. And, I believe there was for a number of reasons -- including the fact that "sentience" exists and we are, therefore, having this conversation.
Acknowledging that something 'may' have occurred or 'may' exist is I think simply an open mind. I'm fine with that. To me that's essentially putting a possibility on hold until such time as appropriate evidence is found to support it. I'll put aliens and vampires in that bracket.
I think where our paths separate is belief.
If I said I did believe in God, or gods, it would be an unreasonable belief, because I've never had a good reason to believe in the first place. I'd also be lying, but that's besides the point.
I've never found the idea that because we're sentient we must be designed by sentience particularly compelling. That seems to be kicking the ball down the road a bit, logically speaking. The next step then is to say as God is sentient, he must be designed by sentience. It's at that stage we're usually forced to invoke a special case for God, be it infinite existence or magic, or whatever. Some manner of 'get out of jail free' card to pluck us from a logical dead-end.
Just a couple of questions:
1) Just what kind of "evidence" (and of what?) do you think we will find when we look for it in the realm of "no space" and "no time"? . . . "Evidence" by definition is OF time and space.
2) "Belief" (or faith) is what it is because it is not necessarily predicated on evidence alone. It is "a conviction or persuasion of truth". What was it that Jesus said -- "Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe"? Ie., in our world, the world of time and space, evidence is helpful in reinforcing a belief and necessary in convincing one's self and others that your "conviction of truth" is valid. But . . . in the pre-bang condition . . .??? See my question #1.
Additionally, "sentience" is a consciousness of existence distinguished from perception and, even, thought. It could also be called "mind". Given the first principle of science, I would ask -- what is the "cause" of this? I am persuaded that it comes from that mystery beyond the big bang. (Vampires and the Easter Bunny are fairy-tales -- not the same, nor have they ever been so considered by serious thinkers.) In short, the spirit and the body, like physics and metaphysics are entirely different worlds, which through a kind of religious awareness, come together -- on occasion. And only at this point may we look for evidence.
Confused? . . . me, too.
Just what kind of "evidence" (and of what?) do you think we will find when we look for it in the realm of "no space" and "no time"?
2) "Belief" (or faith) is what it is because it is not necessarily predicated on evidence alone. It is "a conviction or persuasion of truth". What was it that Jesus said -- "Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe"? Ie., in our world, the world of time and space, evidence is helpful in reinforcing a belief and necessary in convincing one's self and others that your "conviction of truth" is valid. But . . . in the pre-bang condition . . .???
Additionally, "sentience" is a consciousness of existence distinguished from perception and, even, thought. It could also be called "mind". Given the first principle of science, I would ask -- what is the "cause" of this? I am persuaded that it comes from that mystery beyond the big bang.
(Vampires and the Easter Bunny are fairy-tales -- not the same, nor have they ever been so considered by serious thinkers.) In short, the spirit and the body, like physics and metaphysics are entirely different worlds, which through a kind of religious awareness, come together -- on occasion. And only at this point may we look for evidence.
It's a well put together film, even if it is a little primitive in film making technique, and just an outright lie regarding slaves (pyramid workers were paid labor, and not Jewish).
It's mythology for another generation.
I'm flabbergasted that so many people still refer to the pyramids (the Giza group of limestone pyramids) in the same breath as they refer to the Hebrew slavery mentioned in the Old Testament. At no time and in no place have I heard or read of any such connection. The pyramids were built 1,000 years before any form of Egyptian bondage connected with any of the peoples of the Levant is claimed.
Additionally, and entirely separate from the question of Hebrew slavery, it should be noted that it is thought that most of the labor employed to build the Giza pyramids was compensated (meagerly) to build them. But, we don't really know. It is logical, however, to conclude that there their were some slaves used as well (prisoners of war, criminals, etc.).
With all the focus of some on these boards re "archaeological evidence" (Eg., the Egyptian bondage of various tribes of people from the Levant who later became known as "Hebrews") of all these things that happened (alleged or for real) that many millenia ago, we should remember that there exists virtually no archaeological evidence that much if anything happened for a certainty (of Khufu, the man who built the "Great Pyramid" there has been but one 3" tall sculpture yet found). Historians and even archaeologists themselves (perhaps excluding the "minimalists") rely on literary evidence and Aristotelian logic to draw for themselves the "probabilities" which help them to express their to-date conclusions -- however temporary and uncertain they may have to be.
I think the experts have their evidence, and from that they work their reverse engineering logic. I'm led to believe by interviews of the experts that most (if not all) of the labor was paid.
But, when De Mille made his film, Egyptology, like other studies, probably wasn't as advanced as it is now. So he, like most everyone else, relied on religious scripture as the basis for his film, treating it as if it were historical documentation and fantasy elements thrown in; the plagues, parting the Red Sea ... the snakes ... the Nile "bleeding".
Films are made with the agenda to entertain, and so there's a kind of demographic political element tossed in them. So you get De Mille's film as a popular religious film with fantasy elements thrown in it.
I personally think it's fairly entertaining. But I don't take it any more serious than the Golden Voyage of Sinbad, Jason and the Argonauts or Clash of the Titans (all great fantasy films). But, then again, at least to my knowledge, there aren't any Greek pagans around still worshipping Zeus, Athena, Aphrodite and so forth ... are there?
"I think the experts have their evidence, and from that they work their reverse engineering logic. I'm led to believe by interviews of the experts that most (if not all) of the labor was paid."
Well -- that's substantially what I said. (My God, you must have seen lots of interviews! There are hundreds of Egyptologists, and many with differing theories about the subject. I must, also, suggest that none that I know of have ruled out the logic of some slave participation in such massive construction projects at a time when slavery was as common-place as my having two cups of coffee after rising every morning. I mean, how would anyone know the precise make-up of conscripted labor over a probable twenty year period -- without having been there?)
A lot of Near Eastern archaeology, and history, accepts much of what is reported in Scripture (the cited history) as being accurate and, indeed, helpful in learning the truth, and the probabilities, of historical scholarship. And, many more of those reports have been confirmed in archaeology today than were in existence when DeMille made The Ten C's. At least 52 Biblical personages are now accepted as having been proven actual participants in the times and events represented in the Old Testament alone (ref., Lawrence Mykytiuk, Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200-539 BCE and subsequent & corraborating publications)
It seems you are a non-believer -- which is certainly your business. But I suggest that it's a mistake to allow such bias prerogatives to color your view of ancient, and modern documents, (in stone, or on papyrus or paper) which may lead to reinforcement of an opposing faith active in others.
My God, you must have seen lots of interviews!
You are entitled to "your take". But, you insist on repeating the strawman argument. So, I must insist on repeating my points about the probability that the pyramids were built by conscripted but poorly paid labor (a point to which I have agreed with you from the start) -- none of whom had anything to do with the events described in Exodus! BUT, there is also the entirely logical argument that some in the labor force were slaves. The "Jewish" people were not even Jewish at the time, nor a nation, nor in any way a unified or cohesive entity we can trace.
There are many depictions in Egyptian records of bound slaves doing manual labor during the period (looking at it broadly) of which Scripture attests the Hebrews were a part (18th or 19th dynasties -- 1,000 + years after the pyramids were built), and many of the images are of Semitic people (as marching captives and working in the brick pits, for example, in Lower Egypt -- the Goshen region). The slaves so depicted were, at the time, born of tribes, quite disunified and of many religious persuasions different from that of Moses. They weren't Jews as we think of them today -- they were the "seed". We have applied the term "Hebrew" to them for purposes of clarity and continuity both inside and outside testaments tracing the Jewish faith. As the movie depicts, there were Nubian slaves, Philistines, Arabs of differing tribes, etc. moving within the flood of Semites (Hebrews) following their liberator.
You can doubt all you want, but I strongly recommend you read a great deal more about the period, Egypt, the history of all the ancient peoples of that period to get a better understanding of what is known, surmised and in current debate among scholars. The research documentation by DeMille's chief researcher, Henry Noerdlinger, is available on the internet in book form. It was published by the University of Southern California Press and is called Moses and Egypt. Several hundred pages of discussion and historical references which can take you much further into the process of understanding the entire question of the Exodus accounts.
It's a well put together film, even if it is a little primitive in film making technique, and just an outright lie regarding slaves (pyramid workers were paid labor, and not Jewish).
It's my understanding that there were no Jewish people in Egypt during the classical era, ever.
shareFirst, you must explain to us what you mean by "the classical era". Then, you must explain to us when the "Jewish people" became the Jewish people. Then, you must explain to us why you didn't understand my previous posts about the subject at hand.
shareI don't have to explain jack.
Go read a goddamn text book.
"Go read a goddamn text book."
Okay. Which one? . . . I know, I know -- you don't have to tell me jack. . . And don't call me Jack!
Go read a goddamn text book, says your verbal sparring partner.
Quite right, vinidici, and thanks. The difference is that that Greek guy didn't have so many people around him who had no interest in learning anything by any method of instruction. 'Least, I don't think he had.
shareThe pyramid pieces were too heavy for humans to lift and build. Its more likely the dinosaurs created them. They were much stronger and bigger. After humans discovered the use of weaponry, the dinosaurs were hunted down to extinction. A metaphor for this was order 66 in the Star Wars universe. The Egyptians just took ownership of the pyramids afterwards
share[deleted]
Even if you just watch it as a mythology tale, it's still a fantastic classic.
shareI don't believe in religion at all, but this is my favorite movie of all time.
shareI'm a Christian, but I respect your opinion and I assume you probably respect mine. It's nice to see people that can put religion aside and just enjoy a film. I do it too. Dogma is one of my favorite movies yet I was raised Catholic. I'm glad you enjoyed the movie. :)
shareYou don't have to be religious to enjoy it, just like any other fantasy/adventure movie.
share