Very insulting - The Ten Commandments (1956) Discussion

Yes, you are very insulting, and narrow-minded.

reply

"succeeds since many people take this film as actual historical events"

I do not know a single person that believes the Red Sea was parted anywhere near what is depicted in this film, that the commandments were carved by God, that walking sticks turned into cobras, that a rolling fog killed the first born child in many homes, and that includes my brother who is a Priest.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

I do.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8291) 3 years ago

Me too.

reply

[–] jonathan_k80 (6436) 3 years ago

All the scenes you mention are not the product of some Hollywood scriptwriter; they are mentioned in the Book of Exodus:

• Chapter 14:21 Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea. The Lord drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night, and turned the sea into dry land; and the waters were divided.
22 The Israelites went into the sea on dry ground, the waters forming a wall for them on their right and on their left.

• Chapter 34:1 The Lord said to Moses, “Cut two tablets of stone like the former ones, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets, which you broke.

• Chapter 7:8 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron,
9 “When Pharaoh says to you, ‘Perform a wonder,’ then you shall say to Aaron, ‘Take your staff and throw it down before Pharaoh, and it will become a snake.’”
10 So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did as the Lord had commanded; Aaron threw down his staff before Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake.

• Chapter 12:29 At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the prisoner who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the livestock.
The "rolling fog" is an interpretation since Exodus doesn't give a precise description as to its appearance; it's simply referred to as the "destroyer":
Chapter 12:23 For the Lord will pass through to strike down the Egyptians; when he sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the Lord will pass over that door and will not allow the destroyer to enter your houses to strike you down.
This is the destroying angel:
2 Kings 19:35 That very night the angel of the Lord set out and struck down one hundred eighty-five thousand in the camp of the Assyrians; when morning dawned, they were all dead bodies.

reply

[–] duckofprey (1535) 3 years ago

Yes, I know. Fiction dates back dozens of centuries.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8291) 3 years ago

There are some very interesting books that defend the Christian faith on evidential grounds.

reply

[–] Jinx (3040) 3 years ago

Every religion has books that do that. It's called apologetics . . .and they are only interesting to believers.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8291) 3 years ago

Christianity has a mountain of apologetics books. Other religions have, at best, molehills. There's a reason for that.

You say they are only interesting to believers, but I'd argue that they were also interesting to every person who came to faith through them.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6315) 3 years ago

Christianity is purely based on believing Jesus was the son of God hence his words should be followed.
His teachings centered on love and forgiveness and humility, to lead a life in line with God's will. Love your neighbour like you love yourself. This will grant you ethernal bliss.

All the hocus pocus is NOT part of his message, and most of the Bible is tacked on Jesus.
His God is quite different than the one before or after the gospels. And above all, it is highly useless for being a good Christian.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8291) 3 years ago

It's disingenuous to pick and choose what you want to believe about Jesus. Either decide the gospels are reliable historical accounts or give the whole thing up.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6315) 3 years ago

I see that you are clearly missing the concept of faith.
Your perspective is as obtuse as those taking everything on it as an accurate historical report.
I am responding to your wrong statement on Christianity, explaining what that word means. It does NOT mean what you implied about its correlation with the bullshit contained in the Bible.
Faith is about BELIEVING something, not having any solid proof of it. Otherwise it's not FAITH.
Christian faith is no different, and it's about believing in Jesus and his teachings. It's not about KNOWING facts, that are more or less historically reliable.
Even Julius Caesar's life cannot be taken litterally, as lots of rumors and gossip and inaccurate facts were reported about him, and he was way more known and scrutinized than Jesus. Imagine the facts contained in the Bible, which are built from the ground up to sound amazing, how accurate they are. That is NOT the point of Christianity.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8291) 3 years ago

You say "that's not the point of Christianity" but it's clear that you're idea of Christianity in no way matches the historic faith at any time in the last 2,000 years. Because there was never a time where Christianity was not based on, as you call shit, the "bullshit contained in the Bible."

Furthermore, regarding faith, Peter tells Christians to "always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." (1 Peter 3:15) And when Luke composed his gospel, he told his reader that "I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, and I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:3-4)

Give a reason or your faith? Carefully investigated so that you may know the certainty?

If you want to construct some idea of how people are supposed to believe in Jesus and then somehow divorce that idea from the Bible and 2,000 years of Christian tradition, there's no law against doing so, but don't fool yourself into thinking it has anything to do with Christianity.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6315) 3 years ago

Again, your perspective is quite narrow.
You want to take a 2000 years old movement, based on many different interpretations and traditions of many different concept stemmed from a common source, and give it your own view, based on last minute observations, as the only one that has and ever will be true.

I already wrote you what Crhistianity is.
If there are more or less literal interpretations, that's quite normal and unavoidable in such a popular and long lasting religion. But the completely literal one, nowadays and for most of its history, has NOT been the main nor the most popular one.
Most Christians, now and in the past, don't literally believe in most of the utter ludicrous bullshit contained in the Bible, but consider it only interesting as moral tales of some value (if any).

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8291) 3 years ago

All I can tell you is that your view is demonstrably false. Just read the writings of the Early Church Fathers and you'll find that they took the literal life, miracles, death and resurrection of Jesus quite seriously.

As I said, you can hold whatever view you want, but don't confuse it with historical Christianity.

As Paul himself said, "If Christ is not risen, you are still in your sins." His resurrection is more than a nice story, it's the literal event upon which the power of Christianity hangs.

reply

[–] Jinx (3040) 3 years ago

OTHER GODS THAT ROSE FROM THE DEAD IN SPRING BEFORE JESUS CHRIST:
https://gsgriffin.com/2016/12/08/other-gods-that-rose-from-the-dead-in-spring-before-jesus-christ/

Rising from the dead a is common theme in most mythology in the near East and it is closely associated with the winter solstice which is celebrated December 22-25th and is known as ‘the re-birth of the sun’, (notice that it’s three days? December 22-25)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying-and-rising_deity

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8291) 3 years ago

I would encourage you to look more into this. There's a lot of material on it and even most secular scholars don't believe that Jesus was patterned off of other gods.

If you want a very short treatment of this subject, click here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WD-SJx7-66s

For a longer look from the same speaker:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb4cMs52-vk

reply

[–] Jinx (3040) 3 years ago

It is just plain undeniable that there was a common theme in all of these beliefs of gods dying and being brought back to life afterwards. Who are these secular scholars that think that Jesus was unique from the mesopotamian gods of the time?

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8291) 3 years ago

If you look in the "scholarly criticism" section of the the very article you posted--the second one--you'll find that for many of the deities for which this has been alleged the scholarly community has pushed back on it.

When we look at many of these stories we find they really are not very similar at all. Furthermore, in some cases our earliest extant sources for these stories post-date the time of Christ, leading some scholars to suggest the myths took on characteristics of Jesus's story rather than the other way around.

This is why I said to really take the time to look into it. Don't just read a few articles on the Internet or a book or two. Dig into it. Look at both sides and you may find that what looks like a solid case begins to pretty flimsy.

I know this because I got very interested in this subject after watching Zeitgeist several years ago. At the time I was not a Christian and was even hostile to Christianity. But it's really not as air tight as it may at first seem.

reply

[–] Jinx (3040) 3 years ago

I am very educated on the subject my friend, I have a theology degree and have studied this for years. You are right that Zeitgeist is full of misinformation, however, I didn’t say that these deities were exactly like Jesus, they aren’t, what I said was that these deities all came back to life after being dead. These stories don’t have to match Jesus’ closely at all to have the same basic details. Extraordinary birth, son of god, miracles, resurrection.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8291) 3 years ago

I suppose it's a question that every person can make up their own mind about. I can only say that after looking into it I didn't think the evidence was sufficient to conclude the gospel writers borrowed from pagan myths. As I mentioned, in some cases it looked like the borrowing may have gone the other way--after all, many of these pagan stories evolved over time and had earlier versions and later versions--and in others the similarities seemed to me to be superficial.

This isn't regarding dying and rising, but on a related note, I am reminded of the time where I read that such-and-such god (can't remember which one) was "crucified" and that the gospel writers borrowed from this story. Then I read the actual story and the god was actually shot through the foot (or it may have been the leg) and the arrow lodged itself into a tree, sticking him to the tree. And those who are trying to draw connections called this "crucifixion" and equated it with Jesus being nailed to a cross. And of course I'm like, okay, you're not making your case very well.

You mentioned earlier about three days. It's also worth noting that the three-day motif is prefigured in much earlier in the Bible in the story of Jonah--and some would argue also in the story of Abraham and Isaac--and Jesus himself predicted his dying and rising and called it the Sign of Jonah, indicating the act as the ultimate fulfillment of the pattern established hundreds of years earlier.

reply

[–] Jinx (3040) 3 years ago

So you just think it’s a coincidence that all of the tales from that region he the same basic details? I’m just wondering because for me at least the stories don’t have to be exact copies to convince me that the similarities are related.

I did watch the videos you linked by the way and I went to seminary so have been in her shoes before where you use apologetics to try to excuse away anything that threatened the faith, in fact I was a missionary in a couple third world countries for 6 years so I know where you are coming from.

For me personally there just got to be a point where I had to stop trying to manipulate facts to fit my faith . . .really hard thing to acknowledge.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8291) 3 years ago

For me, among many other things, two things loomed large:

1. I concluded that the universe's existence--that we have something rather than nothing--points to some kind of creative intelligence that exists outside of creation itself. The evidence for the Big Bang is strong and indicates that the universe had a beginning, and I thought it an absurdity that a nonexistent universe somehow willed itself into existence. So this did a lot to get me to the point of regarding an intelligent God of some kind as a likelihood.

2. After reviewing the evidence for the resurrection, I found it strong and concluded it likely that Jesus's resurrection from the dead was historical fact. And if Jesus physically rose from the dead, obviously he was no mere man.

3. I have had some experiences in my own life that were, if not undeniably supernatural, at least preternatural, and it I regarded it as evidence that I was on the right track. I'm in fact still processing all that so I don't feel like I can go into it all right now, but it's been very interesting for me.

This conversation reminds me of what Lewis said about Christianity being the "True Myth." This statement here seems relevant:

"The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens—at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical Person crucified . . . under Pontius Pilate."

Lewis was always good for a thoughtful and interesting perspective. More on that here, if you're interested:

https://pillars.taylor.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1091&context=inklings_forever

reply

[–] Jinx (3040) 3 years ago

1. Science, abiogenesis nor evolution ever says that there was nothing. That is something I found out after being told that evolution teaches that something came from nothing my whole life. In fact the first law of thermodynamics tells us that energy cannot be CREATED or destroyed right? It really makes me angry that I was told that because, you are right, it’s absurd to think that something came from nothing and made me instantly disbelieve science because I was told that.

2. How do you determine historical fact? You are right, if he did rise from the dead he is no mere man.

3. If you can’t explain something does that make it supernatural? If you were to explain these supernatural evens in your life do you think other people could come up with an explanation? That is why most people don’t try to relate their supernatural experiences. I would like to hear them though if you are willing.

I’ve read every C.S. Lewis book he wrote, I especially liked ‘Til’ we have faces’ and the ‘screwtape letters’

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8291) 3 years ago

1. Indeed, matter cannot be created or destroyed, at least that is by any natural means. So if it in fact there was ever a time when the material that our universe is made of never existed then it seems we have to look to a supernatural source. If, on the other hand, you do conclude that the building blocks of the universe were always here to begin with, then it seems you have to conclude that those material elements are themselves eternal. I think, for me at least, believing in eternal matter that had no beginning is more difficult than believing in an eternal, immaterial creator.

2. I think, on some level, this is a tough one because someone obviously wasn't there with a smartphone to record the resurrection. But of course we could say that about many moments of history that we today accept as fact, including everything from Alexander the Great's conquests to the Lincoln assassination.

For me, when it comes to the resurrection, among the many arguments that have been put forth, I think the strongest is the changed lives of the apostles. To my understanding, even most secular scholars agree that at least SOME of the apostles were willing to suffer beatings, imprisonment and ultimately death. And they did this not for some belief that was handed down to them, but for tangible historical events that they claimed to have been witnesses to. And it wasn't just one or two men who carried forth their "good news," so I rule out delusion and insanity. And why suffer and die for something they knew to be a lie? The most likely explanation seems to be that something truly extraordinary happened and they were there for it.

(Whoops, ran out of space. Continued below.)

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8291) 3 years ago

3. If we were sitting face to face I might tell you about about some of the odd events that have occurred, but for now I'll just say that God seems to have used a book, one friend, and a series of repeating patterns of numbers to point out certain truths within the Bible that have caused me to seriously doubt the majority belief that the damned suffer eternal conscious torment in hell, and instead that either universalism or annihilationism/conditional immortality is the correct understanding of the fate of those who die in unbelief.

In regard to your question though--does something unexplained necessarily have to be supernatural--the answer of course is no. However, I do think that a lot of unexplained phenomena (like near-death experiences, for instance) do at least strongly suggest--if not prove--that "there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Re: Lewis, I've only read Mere Christianity but I found it every bit the classic that people told me it was. I intend to read everything eventually.

reply

[–] millsey72 (9557) 2 years ago

You have been lied to about your silly religion. God is fake and so is every religion in the world. I bet the people who brainwashed you about the existence of some silly god are laughing at you behind closed doors. They found another sucker

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8291) 2 years ago

So then the universe brought itself into existence? That is your belief? And that's NOT silly to you?

reply

[–] millsey72 (9557) 2 years ago

Yes. Because if you believe in some silly god, then where did this god come from? Who made him? Chemistry created our universe. Its explained in science and evolution has since followed thru. The fact that god just created man is sheer nonsense. Evolution has proved all religions are fake. But people have been so brainwashed since they were little, they can't grasp the concept. At least most cannot

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8291) 2 years ago

Where did the first molecules come from? The Big Bang highly suggests that the universe had a beginning. So who created the initial bits of matter that lead to what we have now?

reply

[–] millsey72 (9557) 2 years ago

I already told you. Chemistry created our universe and it took billions of years. Its ridiculous to suggest some god needed all these billions of years to create the world as we know it. Molecules could have came from comets crashing into Earth or life could have evolved otherwise on Earth via single cell organisms in the sea to eventually on land. You should look into evolution. Its very interesting. Anything is better than listening to made up religious fake stories

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8291) 2 years ago

I'm asking where the matter came from. Where did those molecules come from, those atoms? How did they come into being from nothing?

reply

[–] JoWilli (15153) 2 years ago

thats the same questions I ask people, but no is able to answer it.

here is one that no one has been able to answer:

scientists say the universe is expanding, whats it expanding into?

reply

[–] BillySlater (4097) 2 years ago

"His teachings centered on love and forgiveness and humility, to lead a life in line with God's will. Love your neighbour like you love yourself. This will grant you ethernal bliss."

This is a misunderstanding. You are not granted "eternal bliss" by works/good deeds. You are granted eternal life by grace through faith and it cannot be chosen. Ephesians 2:8-9

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6315) 2 years ago

So you reply to my statement that Jesus teaching is not connected to the Bible by...quoting the Bible?
Makes sense...

reply

[–] BillySlater (4097) 2 years ago

Jesus never says "loving your neighbour grants you eternal bliss".
Regardless of whether you think Jesus´ teachings are connected to the rest of the Bible or not. (They are by the way).
If you don´t like the rest of the Bible. Go straight to the horse´s mouth. In John 14:6. Jesus says no one comes to the Father except through him. No nonsense about being granted eternal bliss by works.

reply

[–] millsey72 (9557) 3 years ago

The bible itself was written over hundreds of years. Its a book of pure fantasy with generations adding made up stories to it. The bible was never a book of history

reply

[–] SteveG (1370) 2 years ago

Yeah, because in that time they had endless resources for printing and recording books of fantasy. It was their top priority. My favorite fantasy and sci-fi books come from that period of time. You know, when anyone could just submit a fanciful story and have it published and propagated right up until now. Seriously bro? I dont want to say it and I know I shouldn’t but I cant help myself… your fukking retarded. Clearly your capacity for thoughtfulness is severely limited. Do you think they had people, resources and printing presses running wild with commercial ambitions back then? Was this most unpopular truth and story a way for empires to thrive? WTF are you talking about? You dont know because you heard something somebody else said and your just repeating it. Do yourself a favor and STFU until you absolutely know of what you speak. Hey look, if you just want to reject Jesus Christ than say that. Dont try and create a nonsensical story to make yourself believe what you feel is correct. It just makes you look like an idiot. You might as well say I dont believe in JFK or Hitler or George Washington or Napoleon or any other historical person because I wasnt around to see them.

reply

[–] millsey72 (9557) 2 years ago

The bible was never written in a historical context. So they brainwashed you that Moses was a real person, etc. And if you were born in China, you would believe in their fat god they call Budda and you would reject whats in the bible. Do you get the point now? Every religion is a lie and fantasy. Do yourself a favor and don't let people brainwash you. Its for your own good. God is imaginary

reply

[–] SteveG (1370) 2 years ago

Just admit, your fukking stupid and you dont know wtf your talking about…. It will be the biggest favor you can ever do for yourself…. Your mind is a train-wreck crashing into a dumpster fire. Thats it, I am done with you. Go ahead and have the last word… because I will allow you to.

reply

[–] millsey72 (9557) 2 years ago

Thank you. The last word is always best and also means I am the winner. Religion has been a very useful tool for the leaders to control their population in every corner of the world and in every time period, including today. You have been used as a pawn to push some silly phony agenda. I was hoping my response could help you but it seems to me that you are so brainwashed, there is no going back with you. You will always believe in some phony god somewhere but you will never meet him and you will use every excuse as to why god somehow doesn't show up to help others like he did in the bible. Example is in this movie. God shows up to help the Hebrews, but he doesn't show up to stop the Holocaust. Its funny how that works. Just think about all the hurricanes, tsnaumis, earthquakes, tornados, etc that your god created which caused so much death, pain and misery on people

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Words worth pondering

reply

[–] liscarkat (16524) 2 years ago

So these events are in a book. So what? It's just a book that some dudes wrote.

reply

[–] jonathan_k80 (6436) 2 years ago

If just "some dudes" wrote the Bible, the Ten Commandments would look totally different. Humans would come up with laws advocating self-centeredness, hedonism and materialism, rather than striving for something higher, or being concerned about others.

reply

[–] johnmiller (3355) 3 years ago

Evangelicals do. Certainly there are Jews who do too.

reply

[–] Adam60z (3749) 4 years ago

What does this have to do with the quality of the film? All films are fictional unless they are documentaries, while some are fiction based on fact. I don't get how a film with the best actors, director, etc. of the time insults peoples' intelligence. What people? Do some watch this and think it's literally true? Yes. But most, even religious people know that the characters and stories are mythical.

reply

[–] kwestmo (4114) 3 years ago

Your performance art has improved over the last year. Dragging your "professor" in was a talented move.

reply

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 3 years ago

It's no less realistic than a movie like Twelve Years a Slave.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

How is that unrealistic?

reply

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 3 years ago

It's pure liberal propaganda. Like most of their movies. They don't care about facts. Look at the Georgia voting law. Jews did go through at least as much persecution, enslavement and death and probably more so than black people. That is depicted in The Ten Commandments. Do you object to that? Or do you object to the more supernatural aspects? To the commandments themselves? To freeing oppressed people who aren't black? Only black people can be seen as noble victims.

And what history never likes to admit is that black people are just as guilty as anyone for the crime of slavery. I wonder if Hollywood is going to make any movies about that!

reply

[–] Lige (303) 3 years ago

Fucking world salad.

reply

[–] Threadkiller (2952) 3 years ago

Anti black gibberish salad

reply

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 3 years ago

LOL

reply

[–] millsey72 (9557) 3 years ago

Now how are black people just as guilty for the crime of slavery? It was the white man invading the continent of Arica and taking whole tribes back to the ships putting them in chains

reply

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 3 years ago

Exactly. You are ignorant of the fact black people enslaved people for centuries, too. Including white people.

reply

[–] millsey72 (9557) 3 years ago

When and where did black people enslave whites? My professor never told me that

reply

[–] triplea (3577) 3 years ago

How did white men enslave black men 4000 years ago in Africa?

reply

[–] Jinx (3040) 3 years ago

At least you acknowledge that slavery is a crime, God didn't have a problem with it in the Bible. Yet another reason why the Bible should not be held up as any kind of a moral standard.

reply

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 3 years ago

Yes, at the very least. But where in the Bible does God support slavery? I must have missed that part in Sunday school. And today only one group of people is held responsible for slavery and that's white people when in fact all people practiced slavery and it is true to this day in Africa. I don't think King Obama ever criticized them for that. Can't say anything bad about black people. It would shatter the image they have so carefully cultivated.

reply

[–] Boricanator (1369) 3 years ago

Colossians 3:22

“ Slaves, obey your masters in all things. Do not obey just when they are watching you, to gain their favor, but serve them honestly, because you respect the Lord.”

Ephesians 6:5-8

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect(A) and fear, and with sincerity of heart,(B) just as you would obey Christ.(C) 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ,(D) doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people,(E) 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do,(F) whether they are slave or free.”

reply

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 3 years ago

I don't see how that means God supports slavery.

reply

[–] Boricanator (1369) 3 years ago

Seriously?

reply

[–] Jinx (3040) 3 years ago

Maybe because in the Bible God says who you can enslave and lays out the difference between enslaving fellow Israelites and foreigners and how you can trick them into staying your slave, how their children belong to you and will be passed on to your children after you die, that you can beat them as long as they don’t die from it within a couple of days because they are your possession. how slaves should obey their masters not only the decent but the cruel ones as well.

Both the Old and the New Testaments have God given instructions regarding slaves.

Exodus 21:20-21 (NASB): 20If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

Exodus 21:4 If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone.

Leviticus 25:44-46 44As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

Even Jesus, who was pretty awesome for the most part recommends that disobedient slaves should be beaten.

Luke 12:47
And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

1Peter 2:18 Slaves, submit to your masters with total respect, not only to those who are good and kind but also to those who are cruel.

reply

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 3 years ago

Well, now I am all for slavery!

reply

[–] Jinx (3040) 3 years ago

I knew it! 😛

reply

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 3 years ago

Odd, though. I have been around Christians all my life. Not one of them talks about the Bible endorsing slavery. In fact, quite the opposite. They are anti-slavery. My pastor was vehemently against slavery. The only people today who seem to want to enslave people are liberals.

reply

[–] Jinx (3040) 3 years ago

*sigh* I actually thought you could not be a jerk for a minute there.

reply

[–] jonathan_k80 (6436) 3 years ago

Read Chapter 3 of Galatians:
27 As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. (bold type added for emphasis)

reply

[–] triplea (3577) 3 years ago

Lol those were literally laws of the time that made it into the book - you realise that slavery was perfectly legal like 1500+ years later right?

reply

[–] Jinx (3040) 3 years ago

Legal doesn’t mean moral . . .you do realize that right? They weren’t just ‘the laws of the time that made it into the book’ they were specifically GOD’S laws for his people.

reply

[–] triplea (3577) 3 years ago

Lol no they weren't at all. You act like the Bible invented slavery? Hahaha that's cute.

Btw slavery still exists today.

reply

[–] ADBruno1985 (3304) 3 years ago

That's why I like to think of this as just being my favorite scary movie ;)

reply

[–] Guitar King (4356) 3 years ago

This movie won the most Academy Awards ever, go cry about THAT, snowflake!

reply

[–] millsey72 (9557) 3 years ago

Thats fine. But the fact this film is meant to be historical non fiction is a big slap in the face to anyone with common sense. Every religious movie is for that matter. Powerful people in all early civilizations created fantasy stories creating gods to control the masses of people. How many wars in human history would have been avoided if no one believed in a god? Easily most of them

reply

[–] Boromir (9712) 3 years ago

Almost all dangerous ideologies in the 20th and 21st centuries are not the result of religious extremism, in many cases they have shown complete intolerance of religion, such as Communism, Nazism and Maoism. People refuse to understand that the civil/secular religion (for example, Marxism and communism) can be no less dangerous than any classic religion. Read some of the theories of scientists and social sciences, mostly associated with postmodernism and you understand.

reply

[–] TimMC (9143) 3 years ago

You just blathered on and on and on and didn't say anything.

Bring some proof or STFU.

reply