ok GODSEND.......how about GODS END....as in the end of god...ok in the movie the boy dies and is brought back to life...meaning u wont need god anymore becuase if people die you wont need god to recreate life any more thus people stop depending on him and lose faith becuase you wood no longer need his dependance.
what do you think?
[deleted]
Better to be stupid than to be an arrogant little #$%^&* who likes namecalling and wishing death on people.
shareI think you make a very valid point in what you said. I too had thought of that while reading the back of the movie box.
shareI don't think your theory is what theyre getting at, but now that you mention it that would actually be really cool. No more rightwing religous loonies trying to hijack our government or fly planes into buildings anymore. Sounds good to me.
shareWaitaminute! It makes sense! I think - if we're grammar purists - the movie should be entitled GodsenT with 't' in the end (send,sent,sent), sooo... if they called a movie this way (with D) maybe the concept of God's End is what they had in mind. but on the other hand... who gives a f*** ;D
shareUm, if you think those Islamists who flew those planes on 9/11/01 were "right wing religous loonies" then you really don't have a grasp on what being right win is all about. In fact, all oppresive governments and idology are very left wing. These Islamic goons want a world ruled by Islamic law which supresses free speech, women's rights, and any opposition whatsoever and will kill anyone who opposes their view. True conservatives respect individual rights and freedoms so if you are going to spout off politically I suggest you get your facts straight first.
"We all go a little mad sometimes"-Norman Bates
Actually, Thomas was correct. Religion is, by nature, right winged, so if we were to call someone a "left-wing religious loonie", we would be creating an oxymoronic phrase.
All religious belief is right wing, and the more fundamentalist that religious belief is, the more right wing it is. In fact, if we get to the point that a person is so right wing that he seems liberal, we get to the point where we call someone a reactionary.
That is what the people who fly planes into buildings are...they are reactionaries. They are still very right wing, but they are so right wing, they seem like fanatics.
In the middle we have the people who don't believe religion should have any basis in public policy, but don't necessarily believe that any action should be taken against religion. On the left, we have the people who believe religion should be outlawed.
No matter how we try to redefine the truth, the fact still remains...the people who fly buildings into planes are right wing just like both of the United States' Presidential candidates. An extreme right wing philosophy is just as dangerous as an extreme left wing philosophy. In fact, there is not a whole lot of difference in the end result of either extreme philosophy. The difference is the means in which such an end is acquired.
Confusing? Welcome to politics 101.
You're very intelligent (pardon if I spelled that wrong, I don't write the word much), bkautzman. They make the most sense are the most unbiased. Of course, no one is completely unbiased or unaffected by societies thoughts and ideas. If you say you're not then you're lying (also pardon me if I spelled that wrong).
But bac to the movie. I think it either means GODS END or GOD SEND
"Why do you wear that stupid bunny suit?" "Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?"
Thank you, panda chibi. You did spell intelligent correctly:)
I agree. No one is completely unbiased, but the less biased tend to make more sense than the biased. I try to not be biased, but even with this particular discussion, I am biased by the fact that I don't think religion should play a role in any nation's government despite my personal religious views.
In this particular discussion, I have kept my bias aside simply because then my views would be automatically refuted by one side of the argument because of words I may have said that have nothing to do with the argument. However, I will elaborate a bit. Yes, I do call al Quada a bunch of nut jobs (wing-nuts is the word I think I used). However, just because the Bush Administration isn't full of nut jobs doesn't necessarily mean they are the good guys.
Personally, I think the people who are able to find their bias and work around it have an advantage when it comes to political discussion. The people who say "I'm not biased" already have a strike against them.
For some reason, I keep thinking of Archie Bunker. "I'm not racist or anything, I just don't want one of 'them' living next door to me."
ps....."Gods End" vs. "God Send" vs. "Godsend"....
Quite frankly, I believe the title was supposed to be a play on words. The obvious meaning, "Godsend", or "God Send", means that the little boy was a gift from God. Okay, I get that. With "Gods End", it gets a little more tricky. If there was an apostrophe, "God's End", it would make more sense. Without the apostrophe, it strikes me to mean that the gods are going to end something.
So, in essence, I believe it may mean both a gift from God (one God), and the act of ending something by the gods (many gods). I don't believe the end of God (God's End) was the intent. Otherwise, an apostrophe would have been included. Plus, quite frankly, "God'send" makes the most sense to me either way anyway, but they didn't do it that way...........
The neo-Islamist fascists are left wing? bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!! free speech, women's rights and tolerating opposition are all left wing ideals there Einstein. Those "true" conservatives like Ronnie Reagan, Trent Lott and Jesse Helms all opposed the civil rights act of 1965 in case you forgot. And those same rightwing neo-cons of today are accusing anyone who has a problem with AWOL drunkdriver Bush's mess in Iraq of hating America. give me a break.
shareMove to Canada.
share[deleted]
Interesting point.
If the political spectrum was a sphere, than right wing religious nuts (like al Qaeda) are so far to the right, they are almost all the way back around on the left. Sounds like something Christopher Columbus would say, eh?
Seriously, though, the true definition of "right-wing" vs. "left wing", at least in the USA, is more a comparison of liberal vs. conservative. Liberals want change, while conservatives like things the way they are. When speaking of religion, people who want things to stay the way they are (or were, in a reactionary sense) are people who want laws to continue to be dictated by religious morals. This is true whether we are talking about the President of the United States or some wing-nut in the Middle East who has his people go on suicide missions to dictate that policy. Both sides of that issue are on the same side of the political spectrum.
So, we can now see why the United States' war on terror is such a complicated ordeal. We have right wingers battling right wingers. The result? Both sides are pointing fingers saying "your belief in God is wrong" while rockets and bombs fly and innocent people die on both sides. That's not a very intelligent way to wage a "war" from either side's standpoint, in my opinion.
Ok first off I´d like to mention that I am not religious so I do not need to take sides culturally or religiously. But I am definitely a beleiver.
In your post you mentioned: "Islamists who flew those planes on 9/11/01". About just THAT... how about the Catholics that tortured in the past, set towns on fire, raped women and children. Hey! We can go further... how about the americans who invented the nukes? How about the americans who just razed a country for no reason but money and oil?... you don´t beleive they had "massive destruction blah" in Irak, did you?. None of the world experts did.
I don´t hate you or have anything personal, but try to widen your spectrum of view. 9-11 were just SOME islamics. If you had just a little more of them seriously against you guys then you would probably have some cars parked on your own street packed with a little nuke inside. Let´s hope not. I sincerily do.
Thing is, our western culture and religions have some really sick things as well if you take the time and open your eyes, so please do not stick a label on someone because he has a religion same as one who "did something".
Most americans have an absolute opinion about anyone who was born in the middle east nowadays that it makes them look RIDICULOUS... even illiterate. Not all westerners are superficial, money-hungry, lonely and have pointless lives... do we?
Wow, you are all retarded. What a poor attempt at intellectual observation. Let me say here that the word "godsend" doesn't even mean something God-related. It is defined as something wanted or needed that comes or happens unexpectedly. Furthermore, I have never met a single person whose religion was rooted in the belief that God is responsible for pregnancy, which is what you directly imply by stating that everyone would abandon their religions if cloning and bringing people back to life became mainstream. The mere idea of that is utterly ridiculous. Not to go all agnostic on you, but sex is responsible for the continuation of human life. It's scientific. Not to say that life isn't a "gift" from God or something, but sperm + egg = you. I live in the Bible belt, so I have met, and discussed religion, etc with my share, and about half the population's share, of near-radical Christians, and I can guarantee you that while existance is attributed to God, 99.9% of people who are religious have faith because of the after-life. What is threatened for not surrending your life to Jesus? It's not "You'll never get pregnant!" It's "You'll suffer eternal torture in Hell from a billion flames hotter than the center of the sun." And it's not like that is just Christian idealogy. Even idolatrous religions (meaning a religion that does not revolve around a god or higher power) such as Buddhism function around the after life. To say that widespread cloning or genetic engineering would diminish, or even dwindle religion is absurd. Anyone who would find their God to be useless after being able to delay or reverse death or eliminate the need for gestation obviously doesn't have a very firm-grounded religion, and wouldn't really contribute to making God obsolete. So. Shut up.
P.S. "God'sent" would not only be the worst name for a movie ever, but it would eliminate any potential sublimination therein, and everyone would look at the movie entirely differently, thus eliminating any margin for objective interpretation. Not only would that save you good people (pseudo-intellectuals) the trouble of posting this keen (laughable (and laugh I did)) observation, but I wouldn't even be here to argue you with you because I would have already completely dismissed this movie for being entirely retarded, and not bothered to look into it at all. So actually, I suppose that would have been a great name because I would have been saved the trouble of being an outwardly sinister minor who just handed your ass. Pow!
I was just about to ask you how old you were, but you answered me in your last sentence ("an outwardly sinister minor"). Let me just say, it showed. And if you let your age stick out like that, you are not handing anyone's ass to anyone.
shareHow do you figure? 1. I can't help letting my immaturity out at least a little bit. What do you expect? I'm 16. Does the fact that I'm not conservative and reserved in my approach totally eliminate (or even hinder) the validity, or hell, eloquence of anything I say? If the fact that I'm 16, acting to a degree like I'm 16, makes anything I say dismissable reguardless of the content, then you are the one acting childishly. And 2. I think it makes it doubly effective, as your getting "owned" by a smart-ass teenager, as opposed to... I don't know. Someone more respectable. Heh, I totally didn't have a counter for that. Oh well. Anyway, I could see this as being a more valid point IF i WUZ TALKING 2 U LIKE THIS. u NO? bUT i WUZNT. k? u NO? sO WUTS TEH PROBALO?
Speaking that way makes a person harder to take seriously. But um, I advocate the English language, and maintain some composure.
bUT HEY, WHATEVS. rITE?
I'm not conservative either. I'm a moderate. I can see the evils of both sides of the political spectrum.
Your post lost my respect at the point where you said: "Wow, you are all retarded".
I prefer objective discussion. And, no...the fact that you are sixteen does not form my judgement of you. I fully respect your opinion up until the point where you start the name-calling. In this case, it was the first sentence of you post.
Hmm. Well firstly, that quote doesn't make lots of sense considering its phrasing implies that matter is something separate than an atom. Which isn't true. Matter IS atoms. Secondly, your friend (and mine) science is responsible for the entire post I just made. The fact that you seem to have a firm, conscious grasp that something else is responsible for all life merely strengthens my point that cloning wouldn't diminish religion.
shareWell, what can I say. That qouote is Neils Bohr´s!
Thats like "enough" IMHO... he should know AT LEAST better than both of us.
Just a fact... about your phrase: "Not to say that life isn't a "gift" from God or something, but sperm + egg = you"... let me inform that someone once said:
"I divided and divided the matter and then the atom, and I cannot find that thing we call life".
Niels Bohr, just "some" cientist ;).
How is my pointing out that you are all being stupid not being objective? I would consider myself uninfluenced by personal prejudice in this case. If I had said something like "I don't think anything you say is valid because your screenames suck" or "I don't know if you are white, or as rich as me, so I'm not going to address anything you say seriously," then that would be me not approaching things objectively. Honestly, you're being less objective than I am. Furthermore I didn't invoke any name-calling. "Retarded" is an adjective, firstly. And I'm sure that saying that you were all being so was unnecessary, but I like to get the point across.
Above all else, I love the fact that you've avoided addressing any point I've made, while managing to challenge whether or not my opinion is respectable. Way to stay within sight of the point.
TINABA: I'll address your most recent points one at a time:
By pointing out that we are all allegedly "stupid", you may not be influenced by personal prejudice. However, you are creating a personal prejudice for yourself. As far as who is being less objective, that is completely up for debate (how's that for being objective?). Shall we have a vote?
Retarded is an adjective, as you correctly pointed out. However, by using the adjective to describe someone, you are implying that person is a retard. Even if only by implication, it is still name-calling. Yes, it was unnecessary to use such a slanderous description, and thank you for realizing that in print.
Finally, the reason I did not address your points before one by one is because I agree with most of them. I am an agnostic moderate, so what little correspondenc we have shared leads me to believe that we are on the same side of the politica spectrum. The one point with which I didn't agree with you was the implication that we are all retards.
One final point....arguing semantics in the English language is not retarded. Your input on the matter was appreciated. The way in which you portrayed your opinion was not.
I was a little silly when i first picked the DVD up in a shop on thursday, thinking it was called God-Send not Gods-end.
Isnt it just that simply by cloning and bringing about the birth of a dead boy that God is no longer needed.
I would have said "touche" if not for the last thing you said. My opinion is my opinion, and I portrayed it as nothing but my opinion. In said opinion, you were all being pseudo-intellectuals, stupidly debating an argument with a ridiculous premise to begin with, and I chose to share that with you. So, essentially you didn't appreciate my opinion... Which is all well and good, etc, but you can't have it both ways.
Furthermore, this subject is tired, and I don't think that any further arguing between us is going to accomplish anything.
Touche might be a good way to put it, but the written word is the most important power and art that has been created over the history of language. The most important and decisive debates in the history of mankind have involved the interpretation of the written word. By ridiculing this art, you are not only ridiculing your species, but you are also ridiculing my chosen profession.
If you had said something along the lines of "arguing semantics is silly", your point would have been well taken. I am not discounting your opinion, rather you are jumping to conclusions.
Finally, I think it is quite cute of you to go back and edit your posts to make it appear as if you are getting the upper hand.
Watch who you reply to... mine has no relation to what you just posted.
Cheers.
TINABA wrote:
Let me say here that the word "godsend" doesn't even mean something God-related. It is defined as something wanted or needed that comes or happens unexpectedly.
Let me just briefly say...firstly im not religious....second of all the word Godsend relates backs through the years originating from Religious ppl beleiving that good things that happened were sent from God....in other words a Godsend.Just thought id throw that in there.
Please don't make my screename into an acronym, it sounds really crappy because it's pronouncable, and it makes me think of Tituba, which makes me think of cake with dog urine in it, which makes me sick to my stomach. So. I would bet my life that you have absolutely no reference for that and are just putting pieces together yourself. Not to say you are wrong, a lot of words have a painfully obvious origin [man I am so tempted to make a preteen-boys-in-the-gym-showers crack about "stumaloo" but I think enough people consider me immature to suffice for now]. Anyway, I was speaking literally.
shareI'm sorry, boating accident, but you really don't know what you are talking about. If you are Christian, then of course God is involved with the reproduction of humans. According to the Bible, He created the first humans. He was directly involved with the creation of Jesus, His son, and it did not involve a sperm and an egg. Besides, if you're going to be so reductionistic and try to argue on Christian's own terms to begin with, then where do you think the sperm and the egg come from? That is why the idea of "God's End" is entirely appropriate - human beings trying to usurp the role of God.
shareOkay, so God created the first human. Appearantly, the skeletons older than the year the Earth was created in the Bible were all fake.
And Jesus was created without an egg and sperm. So Jesus just showed up on the Earth when the pelican flew him in.
What is next? Bunnies laying eggs?
First of all, you completely misread what I was saying. My point was that boating accident's argument against Christianity on its own terms didn't make any sense. Secondly, those shallow points you bring up show your obvious lack of scholarship in the studies of relgion and/or science.
share"So Jesus just showed up on the Earth when the pelican flew him in."
Not exactly.
what r u saying its just a movie jerk hes parents clone him again bcause they want there son back to them if u r the father of hes son do u think u dont do anything to bring him back of cource u will right u will miss him so much bcause his ur son ur going to be crazy thinking of him al the time.......
shareHe's not "brought back to life", he's cloned. It is illegal at this time. This movie opens our minds to the full spectrum of what COULD happen if cloning were legalized. Movies are the canvases of the imaginative mind. Scientists and techies get some of their best ideas from watching movies. Remember the flip telecom that they used in Star Trek, the TV show? It was the forerunner of our current flip cell phone. Writer's imaginations inspire, forewarn, anticipate, open minds and give all a "what if" to life. Sometimes it is a good thing when presented correctly. Sometimes it is a fluke. That is life. Now, why can't we all just get a life and live it the way YOU think God wants you to. Who can know Him, anyway? That's what the Bible says. No one, including me knows for sure what He is thinking right now. Maybe He created us with the capabilities to move on and do things for ourselves like any good Parent would do. Ever think of that??????????
share