• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

What was touchy? That Satan was able to give Jesus a last temptation which he denied in the end?

He didn't "deny" it. He took it and bought into Satan's lies -- and only after he discovered that Satan HAD lied did he ask God to be returned to the cross.

He had a complete breakdown in faith in God and only recanted after proof.

That's not the Biblical Jesus that Christianity teaches.
 
False analogy. If you bash men in general, are you not bashing the man standing next to you? If you bash the man by attacking the core of his masculinity, are you not bashing all men?

The problem here is I am not attacking the core of his masculinity. To keep with your analogy I am attacking the clothes he is wearing (his specific actions or denominated beliefs). The other men (denominations of Christianity) don't wear the same clothes, though they are still all men (Christians).

If it is a commonly shared belief between them all, then yes, you are.
It's a commonly shared belief dictated by the man I am attacking. The belief being false also doesn't discount the overall beliefs.
 
He didn't "deny" it. He took it and bought into Satan's lies -- and only after he discovered that Satan HAD lied did he ask God to be returned to the cross.

He had a complete breakdown in faith in God and only recanted after proof.

That's not the Biblical Jesus that Christianity teaches.

Finally someone that can truly dissect the meanings.

In my view the movie says two things. 1 ) The Jesus was truly human during his time on earth and truly had to deal with all our flaws, 2) If you repent, no matter what has occurred in the past, God will forgive you.
 
Last edited:
I've been trying to get to the root of what exactly is "touchy" to you. Please share what in Angels & Demons and/or the Last Temptation of Christ you found as an attack on Christianity.

For The Last Temptation, it was altering one of the core components of Christ's deity; His infallability. One of the basic tenets of Christianity is that Christ was an example of unshakable faith; that the devil held no sway over him whatsoever.

For Angels and Demons, the entire movie gave the impression that the Catholic Church is nothing more than a front for malevolent cabals and other sinister groups. Actually, both DVC and Angels and Demons gave that impression.

And this whole concept that Christ married and had children with Mary was more than a little offensive, though I do understand he was not the first to come up with that concept.
 
For The Last Temptation, it was altering one of the core components of Christ's deity; His infallability. One of the basic tenets of Christianity is that Christ was an example of unshakable faith; that the devil held no sway over him whatsoever.

For Angels and Demons, the entire movie gave the impression that the Catholic Church is nothing more than a front for malevolent cabals and other sinister groups. Actually, both DVC and Angels and Demons gave that impression.

And this whole concept that Christ married and had children with Mary was more than a little offensive, though I do understand he was not the first to come up with that concept.

Why is it offensive?
 
It's just a movie.....

On a side note reading some of the arguments in this thread and others about evolution.....the worst part about the debate regarding Evolution Vs. Creation is that there are still people who are still trying to argue books which are now ridiculously dated(Darwin's). The amount of information supporting evolution since Darwin is now so vast that reading kids anything out of Darwin's books to support or argue against evolution is akin to trying to teach quantum physics with Babylonian math tablets.
 
Finally someone that can truly dissect the meanings.

In my view the movie says two things. 1 ) The Jesus was truly human during his time on earth and truly had to deal with all our flaws, 2) If you repent, no matter what has occurred in the past, God will forgive you.

Sure, neither of which were presented in a way consistent with the Biblical Jesus.
 
For The Last Temptation, it was altering one of the core components of Christ's deity; His infallability. One of the basic tenets of Christianity is that Christ was an example of unshakable faith; that the devil held no sway over him whatsoever.
Fair enough.

I actually like Christ depicted as more human then divine. It shows that we all have the potential to go in his direction and that we aren't able to just say, "Well that's easy for him, he's divine, if he had to deal with real human issues and have our flaws he wouldn't have made the same decisions".

For Angels and Demons, the entire movie gave the impression that the Catholic Church is nothing more than a front for malevolent cabals and other sinister groups. Actually, both DVC and Angels and Demons gave that impression.
I can see that. Personally I saw these sects as rogue groups of the church, as they are stated as being. Angels & Demons only had a rogue character in the church. There wasn't anything malevolent with the church itself.

And this whole concept that Christ married and had children with Mary was more than a little offensive, though I do understand he was not the first to come up with that concept.
What's wrong with that? What is so sinful or un-divine about loving a woman and reproducing? How would Jesus loving a woman make him less divine?
 
Jesus being married and having children.

Beyond the fact that His godhood would then be passed on to their children, therefore creating a line of demigods in his wake...but there was also the whole issue that Jesus was above fleshly temptation and that his whole life was devoted to service to his Father.
 
What's wrong with that? What is so sinful or un-divine about loving a woman and reproducing? How would Jesus loving a woman make him less divine?

Because it's not why Jesus was put on Earth.

What I find amusing, though, is that this whole "Priory of Sion" nonsense was invented by some French guy in the 1950s as a claim to the riches and status of the French royalty, and there are throngs of people now who take it as some kind of "larger truth" or "secret history."
 
Oh, and I'd also take this blanket indictment of America asthis place too timid to take on religious controversy a lot more seriously if the "more enlightened" elements of Western culture at large didn't go into such apoplexy over anything which might offend Muslim sensibilities.
 
You know when the opening credits started? From there until the closing credits rolled.

Yes indeed credits are hethanistic and should be done away with. In all seriousness do you have anything specific or are you saying this to see yourself type?
 
Beyond the fact that His godhood would then be passed on to their children, therefore creating a line of demigods in his wake...but there was also the whole issue that Jesus was above fleshly temptation and that his whole life was devoted to service to his Father.

Just because it disagrees with your view on Jesus doesn automatically make it offensive.
 
Oh, and I'd also take this blanket indictment of America asthis place too timid to take on religious controversy a lot more seriously if the "more enlightened" elements of Western culture at large didn't go into such apoplexy over anything which might offend Muslim sensibilities.

The comments were obviously made by someone who has a very stereotypical view of American culture. When your film is most likely too crappy to get good distribution, it's often easier to blame something else entirely rather than looking at yourself.
 
Just because it disagrees with your view on Jesus doesn automatically make it offensive.

But it does make it offensive to him. Nothing is really universally offensive because people are all offended by different things.
 
Yes indeed credits are hethanistic and should be done away with. In all seriousness do you have anything specific or are you saying this to see yourself type?

Why don't you try reading further on before you start with the snarky, smartassed comments, pal?
 
I absolutely positively refused to pay to see Angels & Demons....


...not because it offended my early years as a catholic, but because they ****ed the DaVinci Code like a two dollar whore.

But yeah, the notion that the movie wouldn't sell because its too "controversial" is idoitic. There's undoubtably someone that would carry the movie if they really honestly wanted to try.
 
Just because it disagrees with your view on Jesus doesn automatically make it offensive.

Being that "offensive" is subjective, we could talk in circles about this all day. I found it rather offensive. You may not.
 
I absolutely positively refused to pay to see Angels & Demons....


...not because it offended my early years as a catholic, but because they ****ed the DaVinci Code like a two dollar whore.

But yeah, the notion that the movie wouldn't sell because its too "controversial" is idoitic. There's undoubtably someone that would carry the movie if they really honestly wanted to try.

I only watched the first one because Audrey Tautou was in it.
 
Back
Top Bottom