MovieChat Forums > The Prince of Egypt (1998) Discussion > This movie made me dislike religion even...

This movie made me dislike religion even more


Don't get me wrong, I like this film. The art is beautiful, the music is great and the story is well told. But when I saw it when I was 9-10 years old, it only reinforced my dislike of religion (even though I was a sceptic at the time).

I remember as a child thinking how 'God' sent the plagues on the innocent Egyptian people who weren't even slave owners - everyone was punished for what the Pharaoh was doing. If God was just, then he would punish the one who deserved it, not his loved ones or people who had no power over his policies.

I also found it horrifying at the time that 'God' (who is supposedly the good guy) sent the plague to kill children. What the heck? I was never able to come to terms with that - how can you support such a hypocrite who stated numerous times in the Bible that children are to be protected when apparently it is fine to kill infidel children?

As a kid, I loved reading about Ancient Egypt (it was my ancient favourite civilization). The Ancient Egyptians never used slaves to build pyramids and sacred objects - it was an honour that belonged to the citizens. Later on I found out that apparently Jews had a privilaged position in Ancient Egypt. So basically, the Abrahamic religions are based on lies and that's one thing that I hate. How on earth can you believe in a reliion that tells you not to lie but lying in history is acceptable?

reply

[deleted]

My feelings exactly.

Ironically, I'm never affected by propaganda, especially not neonazi one, but this movie single handedly almost made me hate Jews in when I saw this piece of *beep* at the age of 9.

reply

My feelings exactly.

Ironically, I'm never affected by propaganda, especially not neonazi one, but this movie single handedly almost made me hate Jews in when I saw this piece of *beep* at the age of 9.

But jeesh... That is way too harsh, isn't it? Jews who live today can't be held responsible for what their mythology tells us, or even that this movie was made (except for those who were involved with it, of course, but still, it is not their fault either how the story goes). That would be like if I would hate every Greek person in the world, because I don't happen to like some parts of their country's ancient mythology. It is nothing but crazy!

Intelligence and purity.

reply

I know. Obviously. 9-year-old me didn't think so sophisticatedly :D
He saw that "damn... these Jews must be really vengeful, and also violent if THIS is their idea of a family movie" (and please don't tell me that, well, this isn't a family movie - it was marketed as one).

Of course this didn't last long, especially after I met some actual Jewish people later on as a teenager. Just saying.

reply

I know. Obviously. 9-year-old me didn't think so sophisticatedly :D
He saw that "damn... these Jews must be really vengeful, and also violent if THIS is their idea of a family movie" (and please don't tell me that, well, this isn't a family movie - it was marketed as one).

Of course this didn't last long, especially after I met some actual Jewish people later on as a teenager. Just saying.

Well, I don't believe that any Hebrew character in this movie was supposed to be vengeful or violent. God killed those children, and Moses even cried when he understood what was going to happen.

Intelligence and purity.

reply

My argument assumes the existence of God, as you are assuming that a god who kills innocent children is a "bad guy."

God created life. He created people, and he daily gives life to each of us who is born. This "life" on Earth is not, has never been, and will never be a permanent gift. God has given it to you temporarily, and He will take it from you. That is a given. You are going to die.

Sometimes God takes young lives, sometimes old. Who are we to say that we know the wisdom (or lack thereof) in this? Does my 3 year old daughter understand my motives when I do something she doesn't like? I can explain to her until I'm blue in the face about calories, fat, cholesterol, diabetes etc. but she is not capable of understanding why she can't eat ice cream for every meal. To her, I am Mean Mommy every time I say no, and it's "I love Mommy!" every time I say yes. We tend to treat God in this same way.

But back to the original point. God has given life, and as such it is HIS prerogative to take it back when He chooses and when He sees fit. I don't recall God ever promising that everyone would die peacefully in their sleep from old age. Rather the opposite, in fact. What is important is to recognize our own mortality, even and especially that of our young ones, and to live accordingly.

Do you ever challenge God on His wisdom in creating you in the first place? Maybe in moments of emotional turmoil, but what about in your good times? Do you ask Him to justify creating you? Why then do you ask Him to justify death? He is not giving you death while allowing others to live. You are going to die. All of us are going to die. You can't avoid it, you can't escape it. It has happened for our entire history and is no surprise that this is our fate. So why do you rail against God for giving the firstborns the same fate as he gives every other human being the world over?

Please don't twist this into an argument that supposes I am not saddened when young people die. Far from it, and believe that I would be devastated and plenty angry if faced with the death of my own young one. But I flatter myself that at least I have enough wisdom to realize that I don't have all the answers and that maybe, just maybe, a God that created the universe might be more enlightened than I am in these matters.



"Well!!! Since when did you become the physical type?"

reply

1) The Pharaoh was given the choice to let the Hebrews go or the firstborn would die. It was always up to him.
2) God was showing Egypt that he was the one true God and not man-made as the ones Egypt worshiped.
3) All of Egypt had gone along with the persecution of the Hebrews and the infanticide without any conscience so they were all in some sense responsible.

reply

So just for the record, I'm not particularly religious, but I was RAISED Jewish, so that's where these answers are coming from.

1) This is the tricksy, kinda interesting part of Exodus. In the actual text, it is NOT up to Pharaoh...God continually "hardens his heart" before he says 'yes' or 'no'. Which makes it really confusing. Because on the surface, you want to say, "hey, god was giving him a choice, free will and all that"...but the actual text indicates something a bit darker. That God had looked on the Egyptians, judged them, and decided to come down like a hammer and make an example of an entire people.

You don't have to agree with God's actions in that story, but that's the facts of the matter. Not even too far out of character for OT God.

2) Pretty much dead on, there's a big component of "*beep* the idols, I am the one true God" running through Exodus as it runs through every other thread of the OT, from Abraham smashing the idols on up through the end.

3) Also dead on. The point is that in a nation like that, where the Hebrews were visible, public slaves, there were no innocents...those who lived in the society and didn't speak out against it were the enemy and allied with the Egyptians, and so they were treated as such.

reply

There was a different sense of morality then. Children were seen as a possession of the father, without a real identity of their own. So it's like taking their most precious possession from them. It works up from things like their flocks to something as dear as their own children, as a kind of poetic flair.

That is why God sacrificing his "only begotten Son" is supposed to be moving in the New Testament (when the older gospels were written Jesus and God were obviously separate "characters"). God is giving up his only child, his dearest possession, which is supposed to be the ultimate form of sacrifice. Same with Abraham and Isaac, which surely helped inspire it. The original ``readers`` were not supposed to be concerned about Isaac, but moved at the level of obedience of Abraham...that he would give up his only son, his dearest possession, for the sake of his god.

I also think some of Jacob`s adult sons offered to kill their own children if they failed to bring Benjamin back safely from Egypt (when Joseph orders them to bring him there), as a kind of ``eye for an eye`` debt.

Obviously the reason was to punish the Egyptians, but it wasn`t so much about striking them dead, so much as it was about taking away something that belonged to them.

reply

That is why God sacrificing his "only begotten Son" is supposed to be moving in the New Testament (when the older gospels were written Jesus and God were obviously separate "characters"). God is giving up his only child, his dearest possession, which is supposed to be the ultimate form of sacrifice. Same with Abraham and Isaac, which surely helped inspire it. The original ``readers`` were not supposed to be concerned about Isaac, but moved at the level of obedience of Abraham...that he would give up his only son, his dearest possession, for the sake of his god.

Yes, but that would be an alien concept to most modern people. Even the Jesus story might raise eyebrows today. But he was at least a grown man, who was the son of God to boot, so even though he could still feel fear and pain, he was fully aware of what was going on and why. Isaac though was still just a kid (I don't believe that the Bible specified his exact age, but he was hardly a grown man) and a mortal kid at that, who suddenly was strapped down on a cliff to be sacrificed to God by his father. It is very hard for a modern reader to be amazed by Abraham's faith and obedience, when we would be more likely to think "God should never had demanded such a thing, and Abraham should never had agreed to it". Of course, the story ended happily for both Isaac and Abraham. But that is still one of my sister's least favorite stories from the Bible, and I can't really blame her for feeling that way.

Intelligence and purity.

reply

I understand your point, Sorcia, but it's not so much a matter of if it's possible to rationalize a way for God to be "good" for doing this, IF you presuppose the existence, not just of God, but that God is the God of the Judeo-Christian belief structure, AND that the Bible is accurate.

What it appears that most people are stating, is that this particular story makes it much harder for someone not already of such unwavering belief, to come to believe in the correctness of the Bible, and that God is as the Bible describes.

From where I stand, you can only justify this, morally, if you considering it axiomatic that the Bible is literal and true.


Entertainment and politics... I see Ellsworth Toohey is winning...

reply

Sometimes God takes young lives, sometimes old. Who are we to say that we know the wisdom (or lack thereof) in this? Does my 3 year old daughter understand my motives when I do something she doesn't like? I can explain to her until I'm blue in the face about calories, fat, cholesterol, diabetes etc. but she is not capable of understanding why she can't eat ice cream for every meal. To her, I am Mean Mommy every time I say no, and it's "I love Mommy!" every time I say yes. We tend to treat God in this same way.

Nice analogy! I love it!

Intelligence and purity.

reply

That's sick, and I mean sick in the traditional sense, not the modern slang definition. To Hell with religion.

reply

As much as I love Egypt...I seriously doubt that citizens crowned it an "honor". I mean have you seen these things...One block of rock was like picking up a small car. Also, Egyptian Gods did worse. Jews did have a privileged position for sometime in Egypt though...I think it's a mix of both. People think that if something shows proganada, that you should ignore the message or the faith behind it...i choose to ignore the propaganda ONLY (keep the faith and message though).

"Life is a movie. Write your own ending. Keep believing. Keep pretending"-Kermit

reply

First off your judging the story from the wrong perspective. If your going to look into history, or religions you have to be able to leave your personal biases at the door. You have to look at this story from the perspective of those it was written. To the Hebrews death did not have the same connotations you give it. The death of the first born child was a punishment to the adults of Egypt who lost those most precious to them. The Hebrews believed that when those children died they were brought to heaven to be with their (being the Hebrew) God. Which to a Hebrew or those of Jewish faith was the highest honour one could gain. Death is only sad for those left behind not those who died.

Secondly, as you began to learn more about your history you will learn that history is written by those with the most power. The Egyptians like any civilization would tend to write about themselves in a positive light other civilizations tended to not. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Look more into Egyptian history you might find some disturbing content their as well. No religion, civilization, or people was better then any other you will find dark passages everywhere.

Thirdly the Old Testament was written years after the fact. These stories were originally told by word of mouth for hundreds of years before they were written down. Things got lost and embellished to make for better story telling and so you could remember it better. To those who believe in it is not hard to rationalize why somethings might not completely match up with history. Bits of history get lost over time and we don't have an even close to complete picture of what Ancient Egypt was really like. Points of view have a way of warping things. Ancient history is almost as subjective as religion.

Its something you'll get used to a mental mind *beep* can be nice!

reply

The Bible makes reference to the good times between the Hebrews and the Egyptians. Hell, Joseph took his family to Egypt and they were treated fantastic. So they stayed. But in 6,000 years a lot can happen. And approximately 400 years is barely over 5% of that history, so why bring it up in textbooks and such?

Anyway, the point I wanted to make was this: the Abrahamic religions aren't based on doing what is good. They only focus on doing what God, YHWH, and Allah tell them is good.

They masquerade under the image of doing right, but they just want to make their God happy. And the worst thing is that these religions are so prominant, and they're followed by so many, that anyone who steps back and asks "why do we follow a God that kills children?" is attacked and either submits to the pressure and accepts it or leaves.

Just like in the real world, whoever has the power makes the rules. Or is it money? Well, money is power. Christians, Jews and Muslims believe their respective gods have all the power, so they follow the rules.

So in that way, those three religions are just like most every other religion. The difference is they believe that because God has the power, and thus makes the rules, He is always right. Which isn't the case. A god who kills children is wrong. It doesn't matter if he does it as payback, or as a lesson or whatever. And anyone who looks at it and says it isn't wrong is delusional.

Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of good thing in those religions. A lot of basic rules that every human agrees with. "Do onto others..." and that sort of thing. But the bad is just as evident as the good. So anyone who claims to worship God because He is good is wrong. You worship gods to keep them from killing you. And since those three religions aren't the sole religions, their God has less power than they think.

"You can't wear a vest with a vest. That's just tacky."

reply

G-d is not good. G-d is not evil. G-d IS.

Supermodels...spoiled stupid little stick figures mit poofy lips who sink only about zemselves.

reply

God is good and love itself. Satan is evil.

I belong to Jesus: my Lord, Savior, my eternity, my everything. I love you, Jesus!

reply

The firstborn children that died went right to heaven, peacefully most likely. But for the Egyptians of course it was a nightmare. By the way, God is completely good.

reply

Oh, really? The god that told his people to stone to death fornicators is good? Funny thing about it is that that same god had previously said that killing is a sin, and stone someone to death IS killing. The abrahamic god is not good, just a twisted, narcissistic hypocrite.

reply

Oh, really? The god that told his people to stone to death fornicators is good? Funny thing about it is that that same god had previously said that killing is a sin, and stone someone to death IS killing. The abrahamic god is not good, just a twisted, narcissistic hypocrite.

How about that guy in the book of Leviticus, whom they had to stone to death for the revolting crime of, get this, picking up some firewood on the Sabbath! Yeah, it makes no sense for us today. But if you could ask a Jew from ancient times, he would have said that everybody had to obey God or suffer the consequences. No matter how extreme or silly a lot of his commandments might seem to us today, people back in antiquity believed that they as mere mortals had no right to ever question them.

And furthermore, some of these rules made more sense at the time. Circumcision made it much easier for people to keep a good hygiene in a dry climate, where water is scarce. Pork was more likely than other meat to go bad in that same climate, so there was a risk that people could get sick from eating it. But there was no way you could explain this to ancient people, who didn't have our relatively high knowledge about these matters. So it was much easier to tell them "God commands you to do these things, but he also forbids you to do these things."

And even the poor guy, who was executed for breaking the Sabbath, was a victim of a lesson, that the Sabbath was serious business. Even slaves and animals had the right to have one day every week off from work in ancient Israel, and nobody was going to be denied that holy right. Of course, I don't believe that too many people today would feel that it was right that he had to die. But yet again, that was a different time with other values than ours.

It is telling though that by the time when Jesus came along, he was keen on breaking several rules of his religion. He told his disciples that it didn't matter what you ate, and it was okay to work on the Sabbath when you had to. Paul had more experience with living among gentiles, so he would go even further and tried to explain why following the law of Moses wasn't necessary. That made it easier for Christianity to spread to other people than Jews.

Intelligence and purity.

reply

You didn't get my point. What I was trying to say is that first, in the book of Exodus, God tells his people that killing is wrong, but then, in the book of Deuteronomy, he says that they must kill fornicators. I mean, WTF, punish a sin (fornicating) with another, worse sin (killing)? And the he sends his own son (or he himself goes incarnated, I don't know) to say, again, that killing is wrong and abolish the (stoning to death/killing) law he himself had imposed?

reply

I got your point, but I was trying to explain that we're talking about a different time with a different set of values. So to a Jew in ancient times, fornication would be no less of a sin than what murder was. David was a freaking king, and he could still not get away with sleeping with another man's wife! (Of course, he also did something else besides the adultery (he had Bathsheba's husband killed in battle, so he could marry her afterwards) and he could never be punished by other men, but only by God himself, but still...)

And as for the commandment against killing, there were obviously two exceptions when you were allowed to do it: when a criminal was to be executed, and when a war was to be faught. Yes, it might still seem like hypocricy to you. But even to many people today, those two are the exceptions to the "you shall not kill" rule.

Intelligence and purity.

reply

And apparently G-d doesn't abide vowels. "Put in that "o", go directly to Hell!". Which commandment is that?

reply

I was only six years old, when I was first told the story about the Egyptian children. And yes, it is a really creepy story to a modern audience (as it also must have been to all the parents, who lost a beloved child during that night). But even as a six-year-old, I understood that what was described was to be seen as a necessary evil. And besides, you can see it as a retribution for all those murdered Hebrew babies. But the most important thing to realize here is, of course, that the story comes from an ancient culture, that had very different values from what we have today. People back then were taught to not question God or his wisdom or his actions, and death was most likely more natural to them than what it is to people today.

Intelligence and purity.

reply

God punished all those "innocent people" because nearly all of them, 99% probably, were supportive of what the pharaoh was doing. They were supportive of him keeping slaves. Many of the Egyptians owned slaves. It was a normal thing for them, and they thought it was ok. This just shows you how evil the Egyptians were. Egyptians worshiped many gods. The Hebrews worshiped God and put their trust in him, and God could see that his people were suffering. So he put an end to it. This punishment wasn't just for pharaoh, it was for all the Egyptians that wouldn't turn from their wicked ways. And as for the Egyptian children, the ones that died will go to heaven. They are only children, and God knows they don't know any better. He always knows what's best.
(I'm not just speaking of this on terms of the movie, I'm also speaking of the real story in the Bible this movie is based on. Most Egyptians were awful people

reply

Yes, the infants, toddlers, and small children supported the Pharaoh's politics, so they deserved to be killed by God.

Religion.

reply