MovieChat Forums > Left Behind (2001) Discussion > You realize this movie is 100% fiction?

You realize this movie is 100% fiction?

posted 12 years ago by megafauna005
17 replies | jump to latest

NONE of the major events depicted here could ever happen IRL! There is just as much chance of Zeus or Thor knockin on your door!

[–] jmarkoff2 12 years ago

100% agree. The concept might make a decent horror fantasy, though, if the authors would recognise it as mere fiction, and not some "divine truth" to be "preached" down our throats.

[–] megafauna005 12 years ago

My physics professor once told me the bible is like Harry Potter-ALL FICTION!

[–] Blueghost 12 years ago

He's right.

[–] BertramWilberforceWooster 12 years ago

He's wrong. They're not all fiction. In real life, there was a Pharoah, Egypt is a real place, some of the rivers mentioned are real, and that's just in Genesis and Exodus!

And Harry Potter? London is real, King's Cross is real, Owl's are not typically seen during the day, and there was a person named Nicholas Flamel who really was an Alchemist (whether he succeeded in creating a real Philosopher's Stone is up for debate).

So, you see, they're not ALL fiction.

--
Once upon a time, we had a love affair with fire.
http://athinkersblog.com/

[–] julielb67 12 years ago

It's definitely fiction but not in the way you think. It's not biblical.

[–] megafauna005 12 years ago

But some looney Christnuts believe it! There is even a creation museum in TN or KY and those psychos believe in the Rapture! Might as well believe in the tooth fairy!

[–] life4all 12 years ago

The Rapture idea is less than 200 years old. It is essentially a misinterpretation of certain Bible texts. The same is true regarding the idea of eternal hellfire and the immortality of the soul. These are all extrapolated ideas that come from misinterpretation of Bible texts. In essence, these concepts could actually be clarified by reading the Bible. So for very different reasons, we are all in agreement.

I of course realize that you can easily reply that the whole book is fantasy so there is no need to say it.

Peace/out.

[–] megafauna005 12 years ago

Why is there no need to say it? I have freedom of speech like you.

The entire bible is crap! Pure fantasy! There are no talking snakes, unicorns, walking on water, adam & eve, etc.

There's as much evidence of bible fairy tales as there is of Zeus rising to the summit of Mt.Olympus!

[–] life4all 12 years ago

Yes, yes a very familiar and predictable response but surely you can do better. It occurs to me that such a wealth of knowledge could be used to educate rather than ridicule. I realize that could be quite a challenge but people have been known to rise to the challenge. Just a thought.

I’d like to ask a serious question though to anyone who can answer. I promise this is not a trick question: According to the Bible was Moses a Jew?

[–] Blueghost 12 years ago

His response may be predictable, but it doesn't mean he's wrong.

To answer your question, I think by definition he was Jewish. But what's that got to do with anything? It doesn't make him a real figure, nor does it lend credence to the bible as a truthful text.

Christianity is a cult, and the tales embedded in them are myths. If you need that to keep you in line, then maybe you don't have that good a concept on right and wrong to begin with.

[–] megafauna005 12 years ago

Good points BlueGhost. To further elaborate:

Archeologists have gradually concluded that much of the early history of the Bible is purely mythical. The Patriarchs are mythical, the Exodus is mythical, and the Conquest is mythical. The main debate nowadays is over how historical the Biblical accounts of Kings David and Solomon are. But the debate over mythicism is not likely to proceed much past them, since the Dual Monarchy period is reasonably well-supported from outside sources, even though the Biblical account of that period is rather editorialized.

The Exodus and the Conquest not having happened as described in the Bible has a certain consequence that archeologists have not talked much about.

That Moses was largely or entirely mythical.

That is because much of his biography, if not most of it, is tied to events that never happened, meaning that a historical Moses could not have confronted the Pharaoh and led the Israelites to freedom. So if there was a historical Moses, was he some now-obscure local leader who got embellished by generations of mythmakers?

That would also explain why Moses's burial site has never been found; even Deuteronomy's writer(s) did not claim to know where it was ("He buried him in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is.", Deut. 34:6).

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rook_hawkins/biblical_errancy/9104

[–] Blueghost 12 years ago

Interesting.

You know, I really don't fault everyday people for believing in nonsense. Sometimes that stuff helps them get through the day. they've got enough to worry about just trying to earn a living. Not everybody can have paleontology and philosophy ticking away in the back of their skulls to counter delusional thinking like religion.

But when someone starts just blatantly pirating history and rewriting it for what they think is a good moral agenda, then you've got to stand up, take notice, and oppose it.

I worked for B&N, the people backing this trash, some ten years back, and they asked me through a friend what I thought about a TV show regarding "a knight who fights the devil." What you need to know is that apart from being an atheist, engineer, and arm chair paleontologist, I do write screenplays and worked in the motion picture industry for a number of years, and at the time was trying to get back in. Ergo, this question was shot in my direction because I was writing a medieval themed TV pilot at the time. My response then was "Uhhh...what?" My response now is a bit more colorful--so much that it would get my account banned if I put it in this post.

Oh well. Other topics await.

[–] julielb67 12 years ago

By definition he wasn't Jewish, he was a Levite. That was the point, I think. Proving to me that sadly while alot of Christians don't even know their own Bible it's even harder to debate with non believers or people that haven't even read the bible, when their knowledge of it is really lacking. I'm not saying that for everyone, but mostly their knowledge of the Bible just comes from hearsay or the traditions of men that have passed down through the years.

[–] megafauna005 12 years ago

Doesn't matter. The bible is 99.9% fiction just like Sumerian religion, Egyptian religioin, Greek religion, etc. Nothing special or superior about middle east religioins that make them any better or any more real than any other!

[–] julielb67 12 years ago

It doesn't matter to the point of what you believe or not but it matters when unbelievers come to debate on the Bible with not having read it or only have read passages here and there. That doesn't really make much sense. If you're going to debate something at least know the subject matter.

[–] Blueghost 12 years ago

Well how about this, all religions are delusional.

[–] life4all 12 years ago

Yes. Julie has exactly identified my point. I apologize for being MIA but I have been overwhelmed with my obligations. Life comes at you hard sometimes.

In this thread I have not said Moses was a real person nor am I saying that he wasn’t a real person! What I have been trying to say instead is that if people want to destroy what they perceive to be a “Mein Kamph”, shouldn’t they at least have read it first? Is it even remotely possible that a cursory understanding of some subjects is simply inadequate for any true intellectual condemnation to prevail? Can’t we understand Hitler a little without all becoming Anti-Semitic Nazis?

The point is that Moses is a pinnacle bible character and apparently very misunderstood by friend and foe alike! As Judaism and Christianity have had such a dramatic influence on western civilization, shouldn’t everyone within the sound of my voice at least realize that the much debated book which describes Moses to us, plainly distinguishes him as being neither a Jew nor an Egyptian? Now if just for one moment we do not revert again to arguing about religion being 100% fiction or delusional might we come to see that we may not even know what the ”fictional” or “true” account of a Moses really is? I mean who was this guy according to “the book”? The three questions I would want to ask myself are:

1) Why do I not know this rather simple fact about this Moses person?
2) What else might I have missed about this book if I have such a cursory knowledge of its contents?
3) Can I possibly be biased and perhaps less than thorough regarding the “mythology” of that which I have chosen to call myth?

Again, this is not an attack on your opinion that the bible is 100% fiction. It is instead a suggestion that we may all have largely disagreed about a shadow (or perhaps a “straw-man”) rather than the substance which casts the shadow. If we could somehow get past the accusatory debates we might actually be able to discuss the “texts” upon which the religion is based. Much of what has occurred in this thread is just “mudslinging”, “troll-ish” and largely counterproductive to gaining insight.

Does that seem reasonable?