MovieChat Forums > Legion (2010) Discussion > Why is there no attempt at ANY biblical ...

Why is there no attempt at ANY biblical or theological accuracy?

posted 14 years ago by thor7685
141 replies | jump to latest

First off, this movie sucks hardcore without the incredibly wrong theology within it. That said, I'm am so very tired of movies using biblical stupidity to make crappy films.

The idea that God wiped the slate clean once, so obviously God will do it again ticks me off to no end, mostly because after wiping out almost all of mankind, God then told Noah that mankind would not be wiped away again. Easy bible story, Noah and the Ark, and yet so many film makers simply stop reading before the end of the story. "OMG, God has detroyed everything with a flood, let's do it differently because God will obviously want to wipe out mankind again". Seriously? Is anyone even trying?

Also, while angels and God are spoken of profusely, the fact that this movie claims the God of Christian faith, then Jesus should have probably made an appearance, you know, if for no other reason than to set the angels straight, "You know guys, I came and died so that mankind would live, so maybe wiping out the 'last hope for humanity' is pretty stupid. Also, if the child is really the last hope for humanity, then the child is probably ME, which means that God didn't tell you to wipe out mankind and kill the child since the child is me, and I am God. Thanks for your attention, now go back to your choir practice."

I watched the trailers thinking that it was Michael the angel fighting against the legions of evil to protect a child. I can get into that I guess since even if it isn't biblically accurate, it is at least in line with muddled theological thinking. But, the legions of angels coming down to wipe out mankind on God's orders by killing the unborn "last hope for humanity" is offensive to anyone who believes in God and has read the Bible. Not just the few verses that argumentative people memorize to show how "terrible" the bible is, I mean read the whole bible and then think how terribly offensive this movie is. You want to make an atheist friendly movie and mock Christian faith, then at least try to do it without being so obviously and offensively blind to your subject matter and read your source material. You want to mock the bible, God, and faith, then read the bible and some quality theological texts and then try not to be a jerk.

This script writers didn't even try to appear to have done any form of research and it shows in their foolish movie devoid of any real theological thought when it is supposed to be about God and angels.

[–] ShadowsGathered 14 years ago

God told Noah that he would never again send a great flood to destroy the earth and mankind... he didn't say anything about never destroying both again, and indeed the bible says that one day He will completely destroy the world with fire.

... the hardest thing in this world is to live in it...

[–] cgriffi2 14 years ago

Pretty sure thats the sun and not god who is going to destroy the earth with fire. Common sense and astrology prove that NOT the bible... suns a star that eventually has to die and when it does it will expand and take out the first three planets. Please dont give god credit for creating the sun.

[–] thor7685 14 years ago

I'm assuming cgriffi2 meant astronomy. And, even if we don't give God credit for creating the sun (even though God did), the book of Revelation predates modern astronomy (and by modern I mean people saying the earth revolved around the sun) by almost 1500 years. So, if we are giving credit about the world ending, gonna have to say that the Bible beat astronomy/astrology fairly soundly.

Common sense that the earth would be destroyed by the sun expanding and taking out the first three planets doesn't come about until, um, uh, oh yeah it isn't common sense as of yet since scientists are unsure if the earth would be detroyed or just pushed farther away by the sun's expansion and most people don't actually think about what will happen in 7 billion years when the sun expands. I would actually argue most people don't know the sun is going to expand in 7 billion years thusly making it not actually common sense.

[–] Sepuldude 14 years ago

sorry to dissappoint you there, the bible wasn't first with predicting the world ending. The mayas were. And since they used astronomy to pinpoint the end of this worlds cycle, well you're kinda wrong on both points aren't you? Yeah I know you will point out that you said 'modern astronomy'. It still remains astronomy you know... Looking at the stars and planets created by something we know not a lot about except it was probably loud and expanding reeeal fast (no not referring to God's fart here). And on another page here, the bible wasn't first in anything. They just used old stories and made them fit to their believe system. sure Jesus may have lived, sure he did great things. That's it. nothing more nothing less. I can expect people believing those stories 1500 years ago, hell even 200 years ago. People back then didn't know better, didn't have the knowledge to explain certain thing. surely people would have used their imagination and make up stories. Hell if I don't know something I use my imagination al lot to fill in the blanks. sorry kinda ranting on here, I'll stop now. I know you won't believe me here. 'Cause you 'have faith'and everything. Still hard to believe for me that you'd rather believe millions of scientists conpire agains all of us, then that a few people made up some fairytales 2000 years ago. Shame really...

[–] starwolf 14 years ago

The Mayans did not predict the end of the world, in 2012 or any other time. They used a calendar which ran in epochs, one of which ended in 2012. There is nothing there about the end of the world. That would be the same as you picking up a calendar and noting that there is nothing after Decemeber 2011 and declaring that Random House, or whoever, had predicted the end of the world on December 31.

As for the Bible not being first in anything - obviously I think you're wrong. Starting with the fact that the earliest books were written - well, it depends. The Torah is considered to be over 3,300 years old, but many scholars consider the book of Job to be the first written and some place it over 3,600 years ago.

Anyway, since you are being pretty nonspecific so will I - the Bible is first in many, many concepts and stories. And where there are creation stories - who borrowed from who? The original stories of the creation predate the Torah - the Torah was just the first extant example of it all being written down.

As for the Mayans, even with their calendar, being first - the Mesoamerican culture started around 2000 BC, which makes it pretty contemporary with the time of the earliest attempts at Biblical writing. The height of the Mayan civilization is post AD (250 - 900), which is well after the entire 66 books of the Bible were written.

[–] ss5mmyers 14 years ago

This is a movie, it doesn't have to be accurate. Most of the ones that try to be, probably have it wrong somewhere.
Creation stories don't really copy one another, they just sound similar because there are only so many ways to say "the Earth was made."

[–] allforfunnplay27 14 years ago

yes, the Bible is about 3500 years old. But it's oral tradition goes back almost another 1000 years. and it is thought to be built on old Mesopotamian oral stories that go even further back. That's where Abraham came from...it makes sense that he brought those stories with him. Many of the stories out of Genesis and other parts of the old testament are rehashed stories of Sumerian Gods and fables: Creation Myth, Garden of Eden (Eden is originally a Sumerian word Edin = steppe plain or grazing land), serpent, tree of knowledge, the flood, Nimrod the Hunter).

But why care about a FICTIONAL story that draws upon Judeo-Christian Mythology? Even if you're a Christian and you're annoyed there's no mention of Jesus, just pretend the movie is based on Jewish mythology. I don't know do you think the Vikings would be annoyed that Marvel Comics made Thor beardless and blonde and Kenneth Branaugh decided to go with it? (actually I think they gave Thor some manly/godly stubble...but he's still blond). I'm pretty sure Liam Neason and Ralph Fienes in "Clash of the Titans" weren't what the Greeks thought Zeus and Hades looked or acted like.

But all that said, "Legion" is still a poor movie. Cheesy horror movie action, little plot development and even less character development...I mean I really didn't care if these characters survived...or even that movie's fictional world.

[–] curlyfroggy 12 years ago

"As for the Bible not being first in anything - obviously I think you're wrong. Starting with the fact that the earliest books were written - well, it depends. The Torah is considered to be over 3,300 years old, but many scholars consider the book of Job to be the first written and some place it over 3,600 years ago."
yeah, and 3500 years ago is very old for you, I guess? 1500 BCE is nothing compared to Hittite texts I happen to have studied and be able to read and were written between 2300 and 1500 BCE, and they were relatively "recently" written compared to Sumerian texts! Egyptian too pre-dates the most ancient parts of the Bible by a millennium. Plus Hittite like all Indo-European languages are also part of our true European roots, not imported from a foreign Semitic people. And by the way, some scholars date the oldest parts of the Bible around 800 BCE - which doesn't make any real difference in proving as ignorant the belief - which is only a belief and a false one at that - the Bible would be the oldest writing in the world. Nor is it the most ancient oral tradition, far from that, it's very "recent" if one considers the history of the world in its whole and not from a Christian-centered biased way of thinking.

[–] Ssertorivs 11 years ago

The Torah is considered to be over 3,300 years old

Incorrect. The writing of the bible began in the 8th century BC and the final reduction (well, 'final'....) was done maybe in the 2nd century BC (the Hasmoneans). The oral traditions contained in the bible go back.... maybe to the 12th century BC? But that's about it.

but many scholars consider the book of Job to be the first written and some place it over 3,600 years ago.

?!?!
What scholars? Fringe theorists, maybe....

the Bible is first in many, many concepts and stories.

No, it isn't.

the Mesoamerican culture started around 2000 BC, which makes it pretty contemporary with the time of the earliest attempts at Biblical writing.

There weren't even Jews in 2000 BC....

Abraham most likely did not exist, and he certainly did not come from Mesopotamia. The bible refers to the place he supposedly came from as 'Ur of The Chaldeans'. But the Chaldeans came to Mesopotamia in the 7th century BC, while Abraham supposedly lived in the early 2nd millennium BC.

A fabricated story, basically.

[–] Thought_Criminal_J62377 14 years ago

One of the things about human nature that bothers me most is how some of us love sensationalism. If it weren't for that you Mayan worshippers wouldn't be clinging to the belief the world is going to end on 12/21/12. I can't wait for that date to arrive so that I can laugh in your faces when nothing happens and then it's 12/22/12

[–] davidsena 13 years ago

How are they any worse than the crazy rapture followers who were paying people to take care of their pets once they ascended fairly recently? It is amusing that that followers of one fairy tale consider those who follow a different fairy tale insane. This was not an atheist friendly movie, it was just a pretty average, 5.0 rating, horror flick. Don't assume because someone is an atheist they don't know the bible; it is more than likely they are one because they know it.

[–] starwolf 13 years ago

Don't assume because someone is an atheist they don't know the bible; it is more than likely they are one because they know it.

I have heard that claim more than once, and seen people say it here on IMDB, but I have never yet actually met anyone who could back the claim up.

I've read the Bible cover to cover 5 times and studied quite a bit of it in depth, and even taught classes about it - including classes about where it came from, the accuracy of the various translations and attempted transliterations.

I'm pretty sure it's not possible to have in depth knowledge of the book and be an atheist.

I will grant you that many atheists might have read bits and pieces of it here and there.

[–] allforfunnplay27 13 years ago

there's "reading it cover to cover" and teaching Sunday bible school and then there's academic knowledge. understanding the theories on how the bible was put together. where it was sourced. what external cultural influences had on the writers. what the alternative books were and why they were excluded. understand the canaanite and sumerian origins and influences and later the persian influences on the old testament. understand all of the competing religions at the turn of the millennium including various sects of judaisim...such as the three would be messiahs before Jesus that the originally the messiah was a warrior leader to free the jews and judea from Rome.

also understanding that the bible as most english speakers know it is or could be significantly different because of all the translations over the years from hebrew, aramaic to greek and egyptian to latin to english.

[–] starwolf 13 years ago

there's "reading it cover to cover" and teaching Sunday bible school and then there's academic knowledge. understanding the theories on how the bible was put together. where it was sourced. what external cultural influences had on the writers. what the alternative books were and why they were excluded. understand the canaanite and sumerian origins and influences and later the persian influences on the old testament. understand all of the competing religions at the turn of the millennium including various sects of judaisim...

And there I was thinking that sort of thing was what I was talking about studying, and evern references part of it when I was writing about teaching classes about where the Bible comes and the various translations and transliterations.

And you are the one who mentioned Sunday school, not me.

[–] allforfunnplay27 13 years ago

fair enough. so you've taught the documentary hypothesis (JEDP?..i forgot..isn't J for yahweh? which is the messed up latin translation jehovah, E for Elohim...for El...the hebrew generic name for god or the father of the canaanite pantheon, D for Deuteronomy and P for Priest?...it's been some years since i read this stuff) and that Wellhouse guy who's theory said the pentateuch had a secular origin?

so i assume you can read hebrew, greek, aramaic, ancient egyptian, cuneiform, phonecian, elamite (ancient persian), akkadian and other ancient languages from cultures that influenced the bible....oh yeah and of course latin. and you're familiar with the historical cultural and religious influences? TWICE the Persians influenced the Judeo-Christians. The first time with Zoroasterism and the 2nd time with Mithras (though it's questionable/debatable if Mithras came from the Persians or not)

[–] starwolf 13 years ago

so i assume you can read hebrew, greek, aramaic, ancient egyptian, cuneiform, phonecian, elamite (ancient persian), akkadian and other ancient languages from cultures that influenced the bible....oh yeah and of course latin.

Oh my, aren't you the logical one?

Don't be silly - name me anyone who is an expert at all of those.

Latin - yes of course. Studied it for years. Greek - I have cheater texts, and well as in-line versions. Aramaic, egyptian - obviousLY I don't read them. I don't need to read them to read histories of them and scholarly treatments of them.

However, name me one person who can read all of those familiarly.

and you're familiar with the historical cultural and religious influences? TWICE the Persians influenced the Judeo-Christians. The first time with Zoroasterism and the 2nd time with Mithras (though it's questionable/debatable if Mithras came from the Persians or not)

Yes, yes, and not as well as I should be.

Any further hyperbole you wish to indulge in?

And just how many, if any atheists fill the shoes of this picture? Are you trying to say you do, or are you just throwing everything you can think of at the wall to see what sticks?

[–] fox-fairandbalanced-news 12 years ago

who cares. the idea that someone can't read the bible and be/remain an atheist is ridiculous. what about those of other faiths? you have absolutely nothing to base that on other than your own ignorance and hatred for those different from yourself. how very christian of you - really, very christian.

also, it's a movie - grow up.

[–] DisturbedPixie 12 years ago

I agree. Absolutely ridiculous.

No one knows everything about the bible, even scholars and historians, but many atheists have read the bible. I know atheists who have read it and wrote about it in college. I know pagans who have read the bible more than once. Many skeptics pride themselves in their understanding of the bible and other mythology texts.

Every person that I have heard speak on their complete readings of the bible say something different about it, so it seems that everyone only contemplates it's message and there is no one understanding of it. Obviously due to the multiple editions, translations, missing sections, and how one story contradicts another story often. You can see a taste of it in the film "fish out of water" where multiple Christian leaders discuss passages that are considered to be about homosexuality by many.

And I would too have read the whole thing if it weren't so poorly written and edited. I don't get how anyone can force themselves to read the same lines again and again as if it has any sense of value in it's words and teachings. I can only read sections for so many minutes before I decide to spend my time reading something well written. If god wrote that, then he needs to learn how to tell a decent story. So that in itself makes it easier for me to be an atheist after reading sections of the bible and scholar's writings about it as well. It's true, I would need tons of mind altering drugs to get through that whole thing or be in jail with that being the only book to read like what happened to my family member. But I have been to bible teachings/meetings/sermons and I have known more Christians than not who have many things to share from it, whether it be hatred, love, or fear.

[–] Fishtales 12 years ago

12/22/2012

[–] actionmanrandell 12 years ago

the Mayans did not predict anything what so ever. the mayan long count is ending in 2012 that is not a prediction but because they didnt extend it
by the way the bible predates the mayan civilization

[–] all-things-otherworldly 14 years ago

You do know that people wrote the bible, right?

"You can fire me, but bitch don't think you can take me."

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jamieflor 11 years ago

Lol, you're smarter than Cgriffi2, I'll give you that. However, modern Astronomy doesn't predate other civilizations, like the Mayans, or the Tibetans, that had accurate calendars, and knowledge about our solar system. Yes, today the folks at the Vatican accept science as fact now, but that wasn't always the case. Sadly, for other sects of Christianity, some of them still live in the dark ages. As for the new testament, it has some good stories, positive messages, and eye witness accounts of events during Christ's childhood, & his later years. However, all books were written by human hands, and humans are not perfect. Just like we're all sinners, nothing that we make can be perfect. The story of Christ from the perspective of his disciples varies, because we all have our own perspective about what we see. When 10 individuals witness a crime, their stories vary, especially over time. It would be the same for Christ's disciples, and authors of other religious doctrines, especially the ones that witnessed the events. Also, what version of the bible are you referring to, because there were many? If I were to make an educational guess, since we're communicating in English, you'd be referring to the King James version; translated into English between 1604-1611. If you're bilingual, you know that translations between different languages aren't 100% accurate. Christ spoke Aramaic, but the King James version of the bible was translated from Hebrew to Greek, & then English. Meaning, that the true message of Christ was translated from Aramaic to Hebrew, to Greek, & then English. I wonder what was lost in translation? On top of that, what about the chapters that weren't included, which were deemed to be unimportant, or contradicting? Is your faith in King James, and his translators as strong as your faith in Christ himself? Believe what you will, & I may agree with you on some issues. However, if you want biblical accuracy in movies about angels, I don't think you'll get it. Then again, perhaps you should become a director yourself.

[–] Thought_Criminal_J62377 14 years ago

Seriously, you have to be an idiot so I'm not even going to ask. Every Christian knows that God created everything! So either you're a Christian with a very low IQ or an atheist/satanist.

[–] Dejael 14 years ago

Why complain about this B-horror flick like it's some work of art, when it is just a ridiculous, pretentious mess? Expecting to get ANY reasonable Biblical point of view out of a hack scriptwriter is asking way too much. This picture is just another cheap exploitation flick in the vein of Christopher Walken's far better film THE PROPHECY (1995) or Demi Moore's far better THE SEVENTH SIGN (1988). And Dennis Quaid is slumming working in this. Come on Dennis, you can do better, and you HAVE done way better than this!

Dejael

[–] johanmeeren-942-997301 11 years ago

No one knows what created the universe, especially not christians, it's called faith and belief for a reason, because it's not been prooved yet. And don't start with "The bible's proof", all the bible is proof of is how impressionable people are.

[–] Red_Hooded_Avenger 12 years ago

Actually, common sense hasn't proven anything. Although it is possible that the sun could be the end of us, I think it to be more likely we kill ourselves off in the end. Since the the ones in power only care about power, it is more probable that we blow ourselves up.

Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken!

[–] mesaxi 12 years ago

Astronomy not Astrology.

[–] NikaCola92 11 years ago

And?

Why are you arguing a point that goes along with astronomy? God will wipe the earth out with fire, why can't he get the sun to do it?

[–] thor7685 14 years ago

“Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done. As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.” - Genesis 8:21-22

[–] cgriffi2 14 years ago

dont disagree with your brother (me) afterall what would our great x 45 grandfather Adam think about us not agreeing?

Evolutuion trumps all thor, hey wait are believing in another god??? Sinner!!!

[–] thor7685 14 years ago

I don't think Adam would really be upset with disagreement as long as we don't come to blows and one of us dies. And by evolution trumps all you mean......? Not knocking evolution, in fact one of my favorite professors devoted a great deal of time and energy to a lecture series about evolution and Christian faith.

So, I'm not sure, have you abandoned the idea of the astrology and common sense refuting God and as such have switched tacks, or are you just going to randomly go through scientific theories that you think refute religious belief?

Also, since the God of the big three (Judaism, Islam, Christianity) is the God of all things and sovereign over all of creation, then you believing in evolution is you believing in a process that is under the authority and subject to the power of God. So, basically, we don't believe in two different versions of God.

Unless you are trying to be funny and referring to my handle as me believing in another god, which is funny to me since I have it as a reference to the Marvel Comics character not Norse mythology. And yes, I am a sinner, and so are you, and so is everyone on earth because we are all broken people who are unable to fix ourselves. And since you wished to have three exclamation points to make your arguement seem more emphatic, I shall do the same. God redeems sinners!!!

[–] Ghostofthemorning 14 years ago

Ok,i have seen a lot of arguing here so lets get some honest facts out ,firstly ,the Mayan "clock" or calendar does indeed predict the "end" of the world as we know it being washed clean ,the sun is predicted to go into a collapsed or dying state in roughly 5 billion years ,now that said ,the christians who have posted here have rather got themselves confused ,because their god created the heavens and the earth which unfortunately includes the sun ,now in the bible we also have the story of the rapture ,people being taken to heaven bodily and those left behind having to endure the time of the antichrist (oh yes,this is highly believable isn't it).
So with that done with we could talk about the war in heaven,but we would wind up with someone from the christian faith or one of it's offshoots saying that there could never be one as angels have no free will,unfortunately again,that is contradictory as the first war in heaven was instigated by lucifer who was cast down for it, for his act of willfulness .
Next point here is the comment about satanists ,another unfortunate mistake here ,
to be a satanist you actually have to have belief in the christian faith to start with as it is a product of christianity ,so while that comment was rather imbecilic in nature and demonstrates a lack of knowledge ,not much could be expected by some who made the statements made ,christianity and the bible and yes i do put them into one bundle here ,are also the YOUNGEST of religions on the planet and please don't confuse philosophies with religions after this point ,the pagan beliefs are far older ,being in the region of 2,000 years older that the first scriptures and given that the bible claims the earth is only 5,000 years old ,this presents another problem .
To this i please ask that no one waving the "god" banner starts saying that dinosaurs are the product of man and men working under the influence of the devil to turn people from belief in the bible (yes i have heard that one before)
I could go on about the pagan holidays being stolen by the christian faith in an effort to force the religion of peoples,but that is a whole different matter , what we are talking about here is a movie ,a work of fiction and artistic license will undoubtably be taken as it is based on a work of fiction itself anyway ,oh and one more thing,the bible as you know it is only 800 years old ,and even then has undergone massive changes in the time since then ,want to believe in something,try going to stonehenge during the full moon .

[–] starwolf 14 years ago

"Ok,i have seen a lot of arguing here so lets get some honest facts out ,firstly ,the Mayan "clock" or calendar does indeed predict the "end" of the world as we know it being washed clean ,the sun is predicted to go into a collapsed or dying state in roughly 5 billion years"

Not sure what you're been reading, but this isn't true.

The Mayan calender is actually three calendars, the long count, the divine calendar, and the civil calendar. Of these, only the civil calendar measured a year as 365 days.

The long count is the one you are referring to, and it is composed of four units, the uinal (20 days), the tun (360 days), the katun (7,200 days), and the baktun (144,00 days, or approximately 394 years).

No one is exactly sure which date to use to synchronize the Mayan calendar with ours, but the best guesses are 13-Aug-3114 BC, 11-Aug-3114 BC, or 15-Oct-3374 BC. If you take the first one as true, then 13.0.0.0 happens on 21-Dec-2012.

Present day Mayans do not claim this represents the end of anything, other than an epoch. Once the long count cycles to a close, another one starts. Nothing more.

But here is the other thing. We are only in baktun 12 and there are still 8 baktuns (close to 3,000 years) to go before we reach the complete end of the cycle. the calendar is congfigured around base 20 for some odd reason.

A katun ends around December 2012, not the entire long count.

So this whole idea of of the end of the world is crap. They didn't say it or predict it.

The rest of what you wrote is hard to ferret out of the wall of text you used, but your idea of the rapture is one interpretation of the Bible (and I believe a wrong one) based on the idea of Premillenialism. I don't think there is any actual support of premillenialism in the Bible and I am not a premillenialist.

Next, the Bible does not claim the world is 5,000 years old. That idea comes from a chronology the Bishop Usher created. He died in 1656. Sadly, many people don't read or understand the Bible so they perpetuate the myth that the Bible says this. It doesn't.

You are actually correct about the early Catholic church subsuming some pagan holidays and making them Christian ones. I have read that one theory was, "People are doing to celebrate it anyway, so they might as well be celebrating a Christian holiday."

But there's the thing - don't confuse Christianity with Catholicism. Catholicism may be one interpretion of Christianity, but it is certainly not the only one. Neither is it the oldest one.

I can't really read the rest of what you wrote. Well I can read it, but I can't understand it.

My advice:
1) Try using the rules of grammar next time. Make sentences, paragraphs, and capitalize the proper letters. It makes your thoughts much easier to understand.

2) Research your facts and don't spout a bunch of stuff you "heard" from people. People say all kinds of things, including being kidnapped and anal probed by aliens. That's one reason heresay is not admissible in a court of law.

[–] Ghostofthemorning 14 years ago

lol Someone who is american can use google ,and sorry the whole anal probing thing is american urban legend ,as for the Mayan section ,you have to dumb things down for some people .

[–] starwolf 14 years ago

Not sure what you are saying at all.

But if you thought I was serious about the anal probing I think you missed the point.

[–] dansemave 14 years ago

Are you saying that Christianity is the youngest religion? Even if we're only talking major religions, Islam is the youngest. Well, maybe I misunderstood you; your sentences are a bit confusing.

[–] Ghostofthemorning 14 years ago

Oddly enough islam is not the youngest religion by any shade of the imagination ,there is plenty of others that are younger ,and ,given the MANY offshoots of christianity it does make it the youngest ,but funnily enough also the one that has caused the most deaths throughout history ,adding to that ,it is also the most contradictory as it has been changed countless times over the years to suit those in leaderships means.
Christianity IS a cult ,there is no two ways about it ,and while i am Pagan ,i DO NOT worship the devil as some ill educated christians believe ,because to worship him i would have to be christian ,meaning for those who don't understand ,it is that faith that created that character and as i am not of that faith in the slightest ,i do not believe in him ,so i wouldn't worship him .
What i find funny is the fact that christians will argue about angels NOT having free will so there could be no war in heaven (which is mentioned in religious texts)but if they did not have free will ,how did it come about that lucifer was cast down for rebelling (maybe not the most correct way of putting it ,but it is the simplest)?

[–] dansemave 14 years ago

Well, having newborn or infant grandchildren doesn't make an old person young. ;) ... And I think I said 'major religions', among which I'd count maybe five.

I know about paganism - that it is by no means satanism. I'm fascinated by ancient mythology and witches and and and. But I just don't have it in me to be truly religious. I envy those who do.

Yeah, the Bible doesn't make much sense to me. Or Christianity as a whole. Still very interesting, though.

[–] Eponymous-too 14 years ago

LOL

This movie is the definition of the OPPOSITE of "atheist friendly". Atheists know there is no god and in this movie there very clearly is one. It's a deist friendly movie.

"My name is Paikea Apirana, and I come from a long line of chiefs stretching all the way back to the Whale Rider."

[–] warrblade101 14 years ago

Thor. Very good comments. I am of the thinking that this movie just screams of just plain bad moviemaking. The producers (clearly idiots) thought this would be a nice horror story for people. Their use of bible verses and that moronic REPEAT of Charlie's voice-over in the beginnning and end is just silly and childish. I believe in a little accuracy in movies just the same as movies should be a way for people to suspend disbelief as well. The reason this movie wasn't a hit and basically was ignored by moviegoers (40 million is bad) is because people can feel how shallow and stupid the script is even if they can't describe why they thought it sucked.

Watching this movie and its lack of decent research is like watching a cowboy and indian movie where the cowboy whips out a machine gun and shoots at indians wearing Roman armor. Movie producers will say "It's just movie! People don't care about details! THey just want an escapist fantasy!" But in the end, there is a threshold going in a movie that ALL moviegoers have.

Anyway, I've said my peace. You made most of the biblical ones.

I actually liked Constantine. Rented it and then saw it a few times on TBS. It's really a lot better than most wannabe Christian centered fantasies. Too bad everybody panned it.

-Warr

[–] Phroggy 14 years ago

Well the answer is simple :
. Bring on God because the Bible freaks will lap it up. (Most have not read the Bible either, just the funny parts)
. Bring on angels to cash on the Goth (some of whom MIGHT have read the Bible)
. Bring on angels fighting with guns and wing fu because… hey, they did it in "The Matrix", so it's, like, kewl. BIG guns. The NRA guys will like it (see first proposition)
. Bring some kind of "chosen child" because, well, they did it in "Terminator", so it's, like, kewl. That way, we can rip off the ending.
. Bring on a voice over because That's What You Do.
. Zombies. Nothing beat zombies. We'll find a way to cram them in somewhere.
. Script's not long enough ? Bring some psycho-babble about how sad the character's live is. That's "character development". Even if the dialogue sucks green weenies.
. What you could not bring on some eeeeeeevil fuh-rinners or a few baaaad muslims ? Oh, well. Let's keep it for the sequel.
. God will bring on apocalypse because some cretins uses His name in vain in moronic movies to make a fast buck. That's "getting tired of the *beep* to you buster.
Bring on the "100 things I learned" thread ! That's all we miss ! :)

[–] Ihateyoumike 14 years ago

...biblical stupidity...

One of the only parts of the OP that really made any sense.

Oh yeah, and saying this movie sucked. Just bad story, bad acting, bad action, stupid looking angel-demons, and I've hated any character that I've ever seen the guy who played Gabriel play.

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/index.php

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Method_Actor 14 years ago

Why do you guys fight over a stupid movie??? It's just a movie. A lot of movies are not fact based. Yeah I agree that this movie isn't biblical, but who cares. It's entertainment and people will do what they want anyway. I don't think that the scriptwriters care about the accuracy of the story. To them it is just a job.
"Every man dies,not every man really lives" - Braveheart.

[–] jak1025 14 years ago

Biblical or theological accuracy?

Well, the thing is, you have to split up Christianity and the belief of God.

Christianity is a creation of man. The Bible, was written by man. The stories in the Bibles, and various versions of it, is fiction. It's written by man.

There probably is a god. Jesus was probably one of his messengers, like the others that he has sent to different parts of the planet that led to the creation of various religions.

But make no mistake. Christianity was created by people that wanted to manipulate others.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] b_joshua_ 14 years ago

100% agree that this movie blows - its like the worst best movie ive seen in a long while - meaning its not like there was just horrible actinging or *beep* effects or camera work - its a "legit" movie

but come on....the plot is so so stupid, starts with crap ends with crap.

The plot is less like end of days and more if god just says f' it all - which in theory could be an interesting twist - god goes back on his word what then....

but to think that if god did actually want that, that we'd have a chance to defeat him is ridiculous - unless that's the point of the movies -

to top it off the best thing we can end the movie with is the word "BULLSH!T"

well that says it all - the freaking guy now has "bad a$$" tattoos and a truck full of guns to protect what - at least we knew john conor would lead the resistance, WTF is this baby gonna do, that's right we weren't told.

follow the instructions - What f'n instructions are you planning a part 2 to this piece of crap - which admittly id have to watch just so i know what part 1 was for....

/boom

[–] tawnygrl 14 years ago

THANK YOU! Yeah, it's not a great movie, but it did what movies are supposed to do, what they were pretty much invented for: to entertain us and help us to escape for 1.5-2hrs at a time.

Now, I am a Christian. I don't go to church, I don't throw my money at televangelists, and I am not a "thumper". But I do believe in him, and try to treat others as I would like to be treated, kind to others, etc. And I drink occasionally, and smoke ciggerettes. Go figure.

That being said, I do REALLY enjoy awesomely bad movies. This movie was pretty high up on my meter. I only nit-pick like these other guys when a movie, any movie, is trying too hard, or is getting brown-nosed by a critic simply because Tom, Brad, or Angelina is in it. You know, the ones that receive "Oscar buzz" for mindless (bad) overacting. (Nick Cage gets a pass in my book. Anything he does is golden)

I am interested in seeing a sequel, if one is being made. I hope so, otherwise the movie REALLY made no sense!

"We've come to wreck everything and ruin your life. God sent us."

[–] Karl Aksel 14 years ago

This movie WAS crap, but there really isn't much theologically inconsistent about the plot as such. Sure, God said he would never wipe us all out again, for we are evil and all that. That was, of course, after he regretted creating us in the first place and sent a flood to kill us off because of our evil. The story, as is written in Genesis, is itself inconsistent. And indeed, the whole of the Bible shows us that God is nothing if not fickle. He changes his mind numerous times about numerous things. So what if he said he wouldn't do it again? Obviously he changed his mind. Again.