Latest Movie News Headlines

Joel Edgerton in talks to join Ridley Scott's Biblical epic Exodus with Christian Bale

Aug. 13, 2013by: Paul Shirey

Director Ridley Scott has been tapdancing around a number of projects since completing last year's PROMETHEUS, one of them being the Biblical epic, EXODUS, which covers the story of Moses and his brother, Ramses. According to THR, Christian Bale is onboard to portray Moses, while ZERO DARK THIRTY and THE GREAT GATSBY actor Joel Edgerton is being sought for Egyptian ruler Ramses, which is essentially the villain role.

The film is said to be moving forward with a September start date, filming in Spain, Morocco, and England. If this is indeed Scott's next picture, then I think it's safe to say that we have our next "competing projects" scenario on our hands, as director Darren Aronofsky is currently in post-production on his Biblical epic, NOAH. Although the two films are about very different people from The Bible, the genre has been relatively quiet at the box office, minus the massively successful PASSION OF THE CHRIST from Mel Gibson. I'm game for both films, myself, as both Scott and Aronofsky are exceptional filmmakers who are well-known for assembling a tremendous cast to bring their visions to life.

Darren Aronofsky's NOAH is set to debut on March 28, 2014, while Scott's EXODUS is currently on the books for December 12, 2014. Scott's next film, THE COUNSELOR, hits theaters on October 25, 2013.

Extra Tidbit: Is the world ready for some big-budget Biblical epics? It's been a while...

MORE FUN FROM AROUND THE WEB

Strikeback
Not registered? Sign-up!
Or

10:49AM on 08/15/2013
I don't see the necessary correlation between believing in God and enjoying a Biblical movie. I also find that atheists are more fun when they aren't trying to take the piss out of believers. In other news, I'm not sure if Joel Edgerton is the right guy to play a Pharaoh. I could buy Bale as an Israelite, but I don't know if I'd buy Edgerton as an ancient Egyptian. Time may tell.

Oh, and Ridley Scott would direct the shit out of any Bible story. Whether you believe in that stuff or not (I'm
I don't see the necessary correlation between believing in God and enjoying a Biblical movie. I also find that atheists are more fun when they aren't trying to take the piss out of believers. In other news, I'm not sure if Joel Edgerton is the right guy to play a Pharaoh. I could buy Bale as an Israelite, but I don't know if I'd buy Edgerton as an ancient Egyptian. Time may tell.

Oh, and Ridley Scott would direct the shit out of any Bible story. Whether you believe in that stuff or not (I'm agnostic leaning toward atheist, but I have known great people who go to church regularly).
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
11:29AM on 08/15/2013
I don't think Edgerton can play an Egyptian because he's white. Mark Strong would be more passable than this guy.
I don't think Edgerton can play an Egyptian because he's white. Mark Strong would be more passable than this guy.
11:53AM on 08/15/2013
Not to disagree with you just because you're Roy, heh, but I don't think you have to be Egyptian to be cast as one. If that were the case, most of the stuff in hollywood would never get cast...wait, maybe you're on to something after all....
Not to disagree with you just because you're Roy, heh, but I don't think you have to be Egyptian to be cast as one. If that were the case, most of the stuff in hollywood would never get cast...wait, maybe you're on to something after all....
12:25PM on 08/15/2013
I didn't say they needed to cast an Egyptian, I said they could at least cast someone who closely resembles someone from that region. Mark Strong has already worked with Scott and he played a pretty convincing Middle Easterner in Body of Lies so why not just include him in this versus Edgerton who doesn't resemble someone from that region in the slightest.
I didn't say they needed to cast an Egyptian, I said they could at least cast someone who closely resembles someone from that region. Mark Strong has already worked with Scott and he played a pretty convincing Middle Easterner in Body of Lies so why not just include him in this versus Edgerton who doesn't resemble someone from that region in the slightest.
7:25PM on 08/14/2013

Ah the believers

For a group of people so enlightened to know for a fact that there is a supreme being, it's pretty amazing how the mere mention of the fact that there might not actually be a god sends you into a fist waving keyboard banging frenzy against someone with an opposing philosphical viewpoint. I feel sorry that a mythical imaginary being has such sway over your emotions, although I expected as much seeing as how you were most likely brainwashed as young children.
For a group of people so enlightened to know for a fact that there is a supreme being, it's pretty amazing how the mere mention of the fact that there might not actually be a god sends you into a fist waving keyboard banging frenzy against someone with an opposing philosphical viewpoint. I feel sorry that a mythical imaginary being has such sway over your emotions, although I expected as much seeing as how you were most likely brainwashed as young children.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
8:36PM on 08/14/2013
A lot of us struggle with faith. That's just part of it. I believe it was y'all that started the flame war and really I don't care that you're not a believer but it's you that really care that I am so no need to feel sorry.
A lot of us struggle with faith. That's just part of it. I believe it was y'all that started the flame war and really I don't care that you're not a believer but it's you that really care that I am so no need to feel sorry.
9:12PM on 08/14/2013
No one cares that you're a believer. It became problematic when some of us criticized the supposed historical context of the film (there is none), at which point turned into an attempted atheists roast (orchestrated by you and others).
No one cares that you're a believer. It became problematic when some of us criticized the supposed historical context of the film (there is none), at which point turned into an attempted atheists roast (orchestrated by you and others).
9:14PM on 08/14/2013
It's not a flame war, it's a religious discussion. The fact that you struggle with faith must mean that somewhere deep inside you must harbour feelings of doubt and suspect that god does not exist. To struggle with faith implies that you also require proof. And yes, I do care. I care because I respect humanity deeply and believe we are capable of great things. If less people were religious the world would be a far better place. Religion deprives people of the ability to think clearly and to
It's not a flame war, it's a religious discussion. The fact that you struggle with faith must mean that somewhere deep inside you must harbour feelings of doubt and suspect that god does not exist. To struggle with faith implies that you also require proof. And yes, I do care. I care because I respect humanity deeply and believe we are capable of great things. If less people were religious the world would be a far better place. Religion deprives people of the ability to think clearly and to form their own opinions rather than the indoctrinated beliefs of their parents and authority figures. Question authority, question your religious leaders, do your own research, form your own conclusions.
9:26PM on 08/14/2013
Therein lies the fundamental problem is that you believe that I and others haven't done our own soul searching. The thing is you believe there is only one solution and if no one gets to your answer then they're just a bunch of mindless drones. Yes you could say I require proof but where you see chance and happenstance, I see can see proof.
Therein lies the fundamental problem is that you believe that I and others haven't done our own soul searching. The thing is you believe there is only one solution and if no one gets to your answer then they're just a bunch of mindless drones. Yes you could say I require proof but where you see chance and happenstance, I see can see proof.
9:37PM on 08/14/2013
Unfortunately my answer is the only one that supports a scientific method and logical thinking as a means of interacting with the universe.

However, if you have proof of an omnipotent creator's existence, please share it, I'm sure there would be plenty of people interested in hearing about that kind of news.
Unfortunately my answer is the only one that supports a scientific method and logical thinking as a means of interacting with the universe.

However, if you have proof of an omnipotent creator's existence, please share it, I'm sure there would be plenty of people interested in hearing about that kind of news.
9:38PM on 08/14/2013
For an extreme example look up the survivor to the Colorado shooting Petra Anderson. You might look at that and say she was lucky. I look at it and wonder how could there not be a God? Again extreme example. And yes a side effect of free will is bad stuff happens to good people so spare me the why does God let bbad things happen. I don't have an answer because I don't know the way everything is supposed to play out.
For an extreme example look up the survivor to the Colorado shooting Petra Anderson. You might look at that and say she was lucky. I look at it and wonder how could there not be a God? Again extreme example. And yes a side effect of free will is bad stuff happens to good people so spare me the why does God let bbad things happen. I don't have an answer because I don't know the way everything is supposed to play out.
11:10PM on 08/14/2013
Fortunately for me, I consider myself to be liberated from the need to believe in miracles.
Fortunately for me, I consider myself to be liberated from the need to believe in miracles.
11:52PM on 08/14/2013
Which proves my point. I see a miracle or other such extraordinary events as proof of the existence of a supreme being, and you just take it as another day on planet earth.
Which proves my point. I see a miracle or other such extraordinary events as proof of the existence of a supreme being, and you just take it as another day on planet earth.
12:15AM on 08/15/2013
mir·a·cle /ˈmirikəl/ , Noun
A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is considered to be divine.

Doctors have actually explained what happened to her, due to a combination of luck and some fortunate biological irregularities in her physiology. Lucky? Very much so, there were extremely long odds of surviving a bullet wound to the head. But a miracle? I don't think so. A million to one odds is still one in a million. I see no case for
mir·a·cle /ˈmirikəl/ , Noun
A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is considered to be divine.

Doctors have actually explained what happened to her, due to a combination of luck and some fortunate biological irregularities in her physiology. Lucky? Very much so, there were extremely long odds of surviving a bullet wound to the head. But a miracle? I don't think so. A million to one odds is still one in a million. I see no case for divinity here.
12:41AM on 08/15/2013
Your "point" still remains to be proven. I backed up my claim that it was not a miracle by virtue of the fact that doctors have actually explained what happened to her, terrible though it was. A miracle, by definition (which I handily included for reference) cannot be explained by any natural or scientific law. What happened to her was NOT a miracle, it was chance. Which, by the way, is also a perfectly logical explanation for everything else that has happened since the birth of the universe.
Your "point" still remains to be proven. I backed up my claim that it was not a miracle by virtue of the fact that doctors have actually explained what happened to her, terrible though it was. A miracle, by definition (which I handily included for reference) cannot be explained by any natural or scientific law. What happened to her was NOT a miracle, it was chance. Which, by the way, is also a perfectly logical explanation for everything else that has happened since the birth of the universe. God didn't create Eve from Adam's rib. It's not a miracle that humans exist on this planet. We evolved over millions of years due to a billion billion billion different events happening in exactly the way they happened to occur; purely by chance. I am spectacularly awed by the simplicity and beauty of this fact, but unfortunately you choose to believe that all of these random chance occurrences could NOT have happened by chance, therefore MUST have been by design. The argument for intelligent design (by way of miracles, since you have supplied no other option) is flimsy, illogical and fundamentally flawed at best; whereas the argument for human evolution is backed by countless provable scientific theories and evidence spanning millions of years. I remain unconvinced by your demonstration of the proof of god (since, according to you and apparently to Pastor Brad Strait, he saved one girl's life as a miraculous demonstration of god's existence yet the same god let a dozen other people die), but am more than willing to entertain any further proof of the existence of an omniscient creator. Your turn.
1:49AM on 08/15/2013
Moreover, my view of "just another day on planet earth" cannot be belittled or diminished by the lack of a creator and should be seen for the pure unabashed awesomeness that it is; in spite of the non-existence of god rather than because of the existence of god. You don't need a god for the world & the universe to be amazing just as it is.
Moreover, my view of "just another day on planet earth" cannot be belittled or diminished by the lack of a creator and should be seen for the pure unabashed awesomeness that it is; in spite of the non-existence of god rather than because of the existence of god. You don't need a god for the world & the universe to be amazing just as it is.
9:23AM on 08/15/2013
Miracles everyday huh, well I'm pleased that you can be happy with that notion. Just like every living being on this planet, we are all just decomposing pieces of matter. Entire species die and are born every day on this tiny little planet. We just so happen to develop the tools and intelligence to climb the evolutionary ladder. I believe life happens completely by random. Stars are born then die out all the time. A comet could come by any day and wipe out life on this planet in the blink of an
Miracles everyday huh, well I'm pleased that you can be happy with that notion. Just like every living being on this planet, we are all just decomposing pieces of matter. Entire species die and are born every day on this tiny little planet. We just so happen to develop the tools and intelligence to climb the evolutionary ladder. I believe life happens completely by random. Stars are born then die out all the time. A comet could come by any day and wipe out life on this planet in the blink of an eye. Yet with the billions and trillions of golden lock planets out there, life will always thrive.
10:39AM on 08/15/2013
No my point remains the same. We have a fundamental difference in the way we see the causality of the event and it will never be reconciled because you are closed minded to the possibility that my viewpoint is the answer. The problem for me is there is always an exception to virtually every explanation science comes up with, but they just get set aside as anomalies. And if you have anomalies a theory is not infallible. Additionally if I required the same burden of proof that man came from a
No my point remains the same. We have a fundamental difference in the way we see the causality of the event and it will never be reconciled because you are closed minded to the possibility that my viewpoint is the answer. The problem for me is there is always an exception to virtually every explanation science comes up with, but they just get set aside as anomalies. And if you have anomalies a theory is not infallible. Additionally if I required the same burden of proof that man came from a bowl of soup in Africa you would have no more ability than I do to prove that Eve came from Adam. Also while we're on it here's a fun fact I learned recently, there are 21 verses in the Bible that reference an expanding universe. Pretty profound of them to write about something we weren't able to prove until 2000 years later.
5:21PM on 08/15/2013
John, there are also several versus in Hinduism's Vedas and Buddhism's Dhammapada regarding causality (chain of events caused by something prior), an endless expanding set of universes, beings on other planets, and our bodies being made of energy that never fully dissipates. And both of those books were either thousands (Vedas) or hundreds (Dhammapada) of years before the Bible.
John, there are also several versus in Hinduism's Vedas and Buddhism's Dhammapada regarding causality (chain of events caused by something prior), an endless expanding set of universes, beings on other planets, and our bodies being made of energy that never fully dissipates. And both of those books were either thousands (Vedas) or hundreds (Dhammapada) of years before the Bible.
1:04PM on 08/14/2013

Ah the atheist

For a group of people so enlightened to know for fact there is no supreme being, it's pretty amazing how the mere mention of His name sends y'all into a fist waiving keyboard banging frenzy. I mean for a being that doesn't exist He sure has a ton of power over your emotions.
For a group of people so enlightened to know for fact there is no supreme being, it's pretty amazing how the mere mention of His name sends y'all into a fist waiving keyboard banging frenzy. I mean for a being that doesn't exist He sure has a ton of power over your emotions.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
1:10PM on 08/14/2013
1. No person claims to know there is no supreme being.
2. "His" name? Does your god have a penis?
3. Zeus had a ton of power over people's emotions, do you believe in him too?
1. No person claims to know there is no supreme being.
2. "His" name? Does your god have a penis?
3. Zeus had a ton of power over people's emotions, do you believe in him too?
1:55PM on 08/14/2013
1. Get a dictionary and look up atheism
2. I don't know. He is taught as our Father and I believe Him as such. I just don't spend time contemplating whether or not God has genitalia cause frankly that's not important to me.
3. No
1. Get a dictionary and look up atheism
2. I don't know. He is taught as our Father and I believe Him as such. I just don't spend time contemplating whether or not God has genitalia cause frankly that's not important to me.
3. No
7:20PM on 08/14/2013
I am more than willing to believe in a supreme being who knows our most intimate thoughts and controls and guides our actions. However, until such time as you can satisfactorily prove the existence of a supreme being, I will continue to believe in the unfailing beauty of logic, rationality and science, and marvel at the wonders of the universe without the need to believe in an omniscient creator.
I am more than willing to believe in a supreme being who knows our most intimate thoughts and controls and guides our actions. However, until such time as you can satisfactorily prove the existence of a supreme being, I will continue to believe in the unfailing beauty of logic, rationality and science, and marvel at the wonders of the universe without the need to believe in an omniscient creator.
7:22PM on 08/14/2013
1. Atheist is the rejection of the belief in supernatural deities. Not a single definition will say "Atheist know there is no god". Please, go pick up a dictionary or do a quick Google search. However, I recommend going to one that's unbiased and not based on some sort of Christian apologetic.

2. It's not important to you to know whether the god you worship has genitalia, but it's okay to say he's you're father thus implying he's a physical person which makes him just like you and me,
1. Atheist is the rejection of the belief in supernatural deities. Not a single definition will say "Atheist know there is no god". Please, go pick up a dictionary or do a quick Google search. However, I recommend going to one that's unbiased and not based on some sort of Christian apologetic.

2. It's not important to you to know whether the god you worship has genitalia, but it's okay to say he's you're father thus implying he's a physical person which makes him just like you and me, right? Why can't god be a woman? Oh yeah, because the old book that was written by a group of misogynistic lunatics says so.

3. My point exactly. Because a fictional character invokes an emotional response from people doesn't discredit the person emotionally impacted by the character, it simply discredits the person who actually believes such a fictional character exist.
7:30PM on 08/14/2013
@ johnksig95 My esteemed colleague Mr Batty has a salient point in that, were you alive during Roman Empire times, it is incredibly likely you would have been brought up to believe in Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo et al. Seems kind of silly, doesn't it? Likewise, had you been brought up in a muslim country, you would believe in Allah and reject the western notion of god completely. Death to the infidel! Muslims & Christians both claim their god is the ONLY god. You can't both be right, can you...?
@ johnksig95 My esteemed colleague Mr Batty has a salient point in that, were you alive during Roman Empire times, it is incredibly likely you would have been brought up to believe in Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo et al. Seems kind of silly, doesn't it? Likewise, had you been brought up in a muslim country, you would believe in Allah and reject the western notion of god completely. Death to the infidel! Muslims & Christians both claim their god is the ONLY god. You can't both be right, can you...?
8:20PM on 08/14/2013
Jesus called Him Father since I try to follow his example they yes I too say Father.

You cannot reject the belief and at the same time accept the existence.

Mysogynistic? Please explain. Lunatics you bet they were nuts to preach what they were at the time. But thankgoodness they did.

Also per Zeus I never elaborated with my answer. You asked if I believed in him. My answer was no. If someone wants to believe he exists be my guest. I believe they're wrong but I'm not going to go into a
Jesus called Him Father since I try to follow his example they yes I too say Father.

You cannot reject the belief and at the same time accept the existence.

Mysogynistic? Please explain. Lunatics you bet they were nuts to preach what they were at the time. But thankgoodness they did.

Also per Zeus I never elaborated with my answer. You asked if I believed in him. My answer was no. If someone wants to believe he exists be my guest. I believe they're wrong but I'm not going to go into a tizzy about it.

Van - if you require proof then what's the point of faith? It's easy to believe something you can see than it is to struggle with what you cannot.
8:43PM on 08/14/2013
Van - In those scenarios perhaps that might be the case, but none exist so it doesn't matter.

Yes I do believe the Christian God is the one true God and therefore no we both cannot be right.
Van - In those scenarios perhaps that might be the case, but none exist so it doesn't matter.

Yes I do believe the Christian God is the one true God and therefore no we both cannot be right.
8:43PM on 08/14/2013
Re: Zeus... I was using logic to demonstrate the underlying fact that it is inherently flawed to believe in an all-powerful being of any kind. The ancient Romans (and Greeks, and Mesopotamians, and aboriginies, and Celts, and many other ancient civilisations) were absolutely convinced that their gods were real, yet you claim to know there was no Zeus. By your own logic, I can claim to know that all modern versions of an omniscient creator are similarly untrue.
Re: Zeus... I was using logic to demonstrate the underlying fact that it is inherently flawed to believe in an all-powerful being of any kind. The ancient Romans (and Greeks, and Mesopotamians, and aboriginies, and Celts, and many other ancient civilisations) were absolutely convinced that their gods were real, yet you claim to know there was no Zeus. By your own logic, I can claim to know that all modern versions of an omniscient creator are similarly untrue.
8:53PM on 08/14/2013
I require proof because THAT'S HOW SCIENCE WORKS. People used to think with the greatest conviction that the world was flat, that the sun went round the earth, that the universe was created in six days, that there were no such things as germs, the list goes on. These and many other outdated beliefs have all been PROVEN to be incorrect. Furthermore, the entire "proof" argument is a circular one because the definition of faith is "belief without proof". A closed loop that seemingly protects
I require proof because THAT'S HOW SCIENCE WORKS. People used to think with the greatest conviction that the world was flat, that the sun went round the earth, that the universe was created in six days, that there were no such things as germs, the list goes on. These and many other outdated beliefs have all been PROVEN to be incorrect. Furthermore, the entire "proof" argument is a circular one because the definition of faith is "belief without proof". A closed loop that seemingly protects religion from discussion or rational questioning. Once again, I'm only using basic logic here.
8:56PM on 08/14/2013
So by your own admission, you cannot both be right. Which logically leads to the following question:

What if you're wrong?
So by your own admission, you cannot both be right. Which logically leads to the following question:

What if you're wrong?
9:10PM on 08/14/2013
Oh Jesus, the guy no one really knows existed and the only source pointing to existence is found in a 2,000 year old set of inconsistent gospels that were put together decades after his supposed death. That guy?

Who said I reject the belief and accept the existence? Do you believe in unicorns, leprechauns, fairies? I assume not. But is there a special title for you for not believing in such a thing? Of course not. Once a society reaches a point of recognizing what they thought to be real
Oh Jesus, the guy no one really knows existed and the only source pointing to existence is found in a 2,000 year old set of inconsistent gospels that were put together decades after his supposed death. That guy?

Who said I reject the belief and accept the existence? Do you believe in unicorns, leprechauns, fairies? I assume not. But is there a special title for you for not believing in such a thing? Of course not. Once a society reaches a point of recognizing what they thought to be real turns out to be a combination of superstitions and just general ignorance, they abandon those ideas. However, with Abrahamic religions, it seems things have become a pissing contest as to who Yahweh/Allah choose to send "his" message to a select group of illiterate individuals.

Misogyny is the hatred and/or mistreatment of women specifically. The Bible, Torah, and Qur'an all see women as the inferior sex (Eve being a byproduct of Adam's loneliness, no female gospels, cases of abusing, raping, and murdering women are often advocated by your god). I just find it fascinating that your god is labeled as omnipotent yet you confine this being to the simplistic physical make-up of not just a human, but a man.

Yes, you believe Zeus is completely ridiculous because as Van noted, you likely grew up in a household dominated by Christianity. If you were raised in India, you would likely be Hindu right now. Think outside of the box and recognize the primary reason you believe your religion is the way is because you were raised to think that way and your geography plays a big role in that "molding".
9:11PM on 08/14/2013
Agreed it is circular and I cannot argue against that point because faith is required. You have to have one for other. Faith by definition is illogical. Also by your admission what we know yesterday can be changed by what we know tomorrow so how do you put your beliefs into something that is constantly changing? Let alone it doesn't offer any moral code save survival of the fittest.
Agreed it is circular and I cannot argue against that point because faith is required. You have to have one for other. Faith by definition is illogical. Also by your admission what we know yesterday can be changed by what we know tomorrow so how do you put your beliefs into something that is constantly changing? Let alone it doesn't offer any moral code save survival of the fittest.
9:17PM on 08/14/2013
Van - yes that is a logical question. In which case I guess we'll both be in hell, but I have faith I'm not wrong. That's all I can really say about that.
Van - yes that is a logical question. In which case I guess we'll both be in hell, but I have faith I'm not wrong. That's all I can really say about that.
9:31PM on 08/14/2013
So, to continue logically: if you are in fact wrong in your religious beliefs (for which you have no proof), you will be going to hell. In which case, shouldn't you do your due diligence and question the nature of religion to make sure you don't end up in hell? Perhaps the muslims have it right? Or perhaps the vikings were right? Or maybe it was the Egyptians who were right? I bet the ancient Romans had faith they weren't wrong either, just as you do. Faith is inherently and fundamentally
So, to continue logically: if you are in fact wrong in your religious beliefs (for which you have no proof), you will be going to hell. In which case, shouldn't you do your due diligence and question the nature of religion to make sure you don't end up in hell? Perhaps the muslims have it right? Or perhaps the vikings were right? Or maybe it was the Egyptians who were right? I bet the ancient Romans had faith they weren't wrong either, just as you do. Faith is inherently and fundamentally flawed as a way of interacting with the world.
9:44PM on 08/14/2013
Van - I don't see your point. I already continued the logic and agree if I'm wrong I would be going to hell. I feel there's no need to search for another God because I feel I've already got the right one.
Van - I don't see your point. I already continued the logic and agree if I'm wrong I would be going to hell. I feel there's no need to search for another God because I feel I've already got the right one.
9:46PM on 08/14/2013
Also, I read your last post in a Forrest Gump voice. Sorry.
Also, I read your last post in a Forrest Gump voice. Sorry.
9:52PM on 08/14/2013
My point is that you've already conceded you might be wrong. Naturally, you probably want to go to heaven and don't want to go to hell. But if you ARE in fact wrong, then you're going to hell. Shouldn't you find out for sure? If you unequivocally believe in the rightness and existence of your own god without demanding proof, you're no better than the legions of Romans who believed in Zeus. What happened to the Romans when they died? What happened to the Egyptians? To any ancient civilisation
My point is that you've already conceded you might be wrong. Naturally, you probably want to go to heaven and don't want to go to hell. But if you ARE in fact wrong, then you're going to hell. Shouldn't you find out for sure? If you unequivocally believe in the rightness and existence of your own god without demanding proof, you're no better than the legions of Romans who believed in Zeus. What happened to the Romans when they died? What happened to the Egyptians? To any ancient civilisation that believed in a non-Abrahamic god? Did they go to hell, or just vanish from existence?
9:58PM on 08/14/2013
Roy - lacking specified examples I cannot argue your point. But let's go back to Adam since that's the only specific one you brought up. So if a woman is inferior why would God choose I rib and not a foot? I think the rib is important because it is pulled from the side of man for a woman to stand next to her man.
Roy - lacking specified examples I cannot argue your point. But let's go back to Adam since that's the only specific one you brought up. So if a woman is inferior why would God choose I rib and not a foot? I think the rib is important because it is pulled from the side of man for a woman to stand next to her man.
10:16PM on 08/14/2013
I've concluded your premise as one of three possible outcomes to life after death. But I don't agree with you that the God I pray to is not THE God so again there's no point for me to look anywhere else. As for ancient civilizations, I don't know. That's the best I can tell you. I know it's a suck answer but I don't. Maybe they just get a one-way ticket to hell or maybe they were judged differently than those who have access to the Word.
I've concluded your premise as one of three possible outcomes to life after death. But I don't agree with you that the God I pray to is not THE God so again there's no point for me to look anywhere else. As for ancient civilizations, I don't know. That's the best I can tell you. I know it's a suck answer but I don't. Maybe they just get a one-way ticket to hell or maybe they were judged differently than those who have access to the Word.
7:30AM on 08/15/2013
I actually gave you three different examples, I just assume Eve the one was the only one you're really familiar with so we'll go with that. You're concluding, based on a subjective opinion at that, that a rib is not as inferior as say a foot. You're basing this conclusion on your own personal view of what anatomical part is more important than the other when in reality a foot would have been more of a proper sacrifice since a foot is more important than a rib. Either way, this doesn't make
I actually gave you three different examples, I just assume Eve the one was the only one you're really familiar with so we'll go with that. You're concluding, based on a subjective opinion at that, that a rib is not as inferior as say a foot. You're basing this conclusion on your own personal view of what anatomical part is more important than the other when in reality a foot would have been more of a proper sacrifice since a foot is more important than a rib. Either way, this doesn't make sense because Yahweh could have easily just made them both at the same time as opposed to realizing Adam was lonely and proceeding to put him to sleep to remove his rib. (why is this necessary?) Then we continue with Eve being labeled as a "helper" to Adam--that doesn't imply she's his equal. And of course, when they're cast from the garden, Eve's punishment is easily the worse of the two (Adam just got sentenced to having to work for his food to the end of his days).
10:58AM on 08/15/2013
No you gave me three generalizations. Returning to Eve then, it doesn't say eve was created because Adam was lonely, it says "it is not good for man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." Now yes you could say that a helper is inferior or you could view a helper as essential. As for the punishment, doesn't the dealer normally get punished more than the user? Of course maybe this is where our society's view of sentencing came from. Hmm interesting hadn't thought about that before.
No you gave me three generalizations. Returning to Eve then, it doesn't say eve was created because Adam was lonely, it says "it is not good for man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." Now yes you could say that a helper is inferior or you could view a helper as essential. As for the punishment, doesn't the dealer normally get punished more than the user? Of course maybe this is where our society's view of sentencing came from. Hmm interesting hadn't thought about that before. Thanks!
11:21AM on 08/15/2013
Also something I didn't know. Ribs regenerate in 2 to 3 months. Kinda makes the rib an obvious choice now. Thanks again!
Also something I didn't know. Ribs regenerate in 2 to 3 months. Kinda makes the rib an obvious choice now. Thanks again!
12:11PM on 08/15/2013
Seriously Roy, I am sincere here. I was (like you I'm sure) really beginning to wonder what the point of our debate was since neither of us will change our minds, however, it turns out you in advertently gave me a new perspective on a passage I wouldn't normally think twice about. I mean a rib, so what? Just like you said, there's 207 other options (208 right? my jr. high science teacher would be proud or embarrassed) to choose from. The rib, scientifically speaking, would make the most sense.
Seriously Roy, I am sincere here. I was (like you I'm sure) really beginning to wonder what the point of our debate was since neither of us will change our minds, however, it turns out you in advertently gave me a new perspective on a passage I wouldn't normally think twice about. I mean a rib, so what? Just like you said, there's 207 other options (208 right? my jr. high science teacher would be proud or embarrassed) to choose from. The rib, scientifically speaking, would make the most sense. Taken in perspective with your notion that the Bible is just a bunch of mushed together books, I in turn ask myself how, without divine inspiration, could the writer with the limited amount of anatomical knowledge at the time pick the one bone that regenerates? Coincidental? From your perspective, sure, but for a believer it is actually kinda profound. Laugh and shake your head all you want, but I think it's pretty cool. So let that be a lesson kids, sometimes arguing with an atheist can actually be spiritually fruitful!
12:41PM on 08/15/2013
John, I didn't provide generalizations, I provided three examples. If you would have preferred more details to those examples then you could have asked. (Ephesians 5:22 - Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord., and Deuteronomy 13:6-10, God commands that you must kill your wife, children, brother, and friend if they worship other gods.)

Technically, as I said before, loneliness was the reason Eve was created. You just said it yourself, Yahweh says it's not good
John, I didn't provide generalizations, I provided three examples. If you would have preferred more details to those examples then you could have asked. (Ephesians 5:22 - Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord., and Deuteronomy 13:6-10, God commands that you must kill your wife, children, brother, and friend if they worship other gods.)

Technically, as I said before, loneliness was the reason Eve was created. You just said it yourself, Yahweh says it's not good for man to be alone so he created Eve to "help" him. Once again, why didn't he create them at the same time if he was aware Adam shouldn't be alone to begin with? I'll tell you why. The men who wrote the Bible didn't like the idea of women being on the same level as themselves so they deemed it appropriate to identify them as helpers to men--not the other way around and not something where they're in it together.

Regarding the rib, you take it as some sort of profound happenstance that the men who wrote the Bible a few thousand years ago were apparently aware of the possible regenerative capabilities of the rib but in reality I'm sure this metaphor wasn't to be taken literal. Neither was the story of Adam and Eve because we know it's physically impossible to have one man and woman in a garden 6,000 years ago which would eventually lead to our current population of 7 billion.

I think the reason you believe it to be divine inspiration is the same reason Muslims believe the illiterate Prophet Muhammad to be an example of Allah's power, or Joseph Smith's apparent hidden foresight as foretold in the Book of Mormon by Mormons; both are said to be so in the very books. It's essentially like me writing a book with a group of friends and we place historical occurrences in-between the events of fictional characters. If we were to approach an isolated tribe with no connectivity to the outside world, they would probably believe the book written by my friends and I as holy scriptures. The same reasons Hindus believe the Vedas are books left by Brahma. It's the exact same thing.
3:31PM on 08/15/2013
"cases of abusing, raping, and murdering women are often advocated by your god" - These are genralized events because you provided no examples in scripture for me to address specifically.

I've never said the earth was 6,000 years old. I would say that the beasts of the earth were created before man, so one could argue that a day in Genesis is greater than what we define as a day today. And in theory support some tenents of evolution.

But let's go back and unpack Ephesians. Everyone always
"cases of abusing, raping, and murdering women are often advocated by your god" - These are genralized events because you provided no examples in scripture for me to address specifically.

I've never said the earth was 6,000 years old. I would say that the beasts of the earth were created before man, so one could argue that a day in Genesis is greater than what we define as a day today. And in theory support some tenents of evolution.

But let's go back and unpack Ephesians. Everyone always stops after wives submit to your husbands as what it means to be a Godly woman, but then think men are left off the hook, but they're not. There are expectations on how a Godly man treats a Godly woman. Skipping down a few versus "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word...He who loves his wife loves himself." Men do not get a free pass, nor should they. I would say as a man, if you interpret the first part of Ephesians as carte blanche to order your wife to rub your feet and clean the garage, then I would say you're not a Godly husband and certainly not living in the spirit of those verses.

I'll have to get back to you on the other one. It's not one I'm familiar with.
4:02PM on 08/15/2013
Ok, Old Testament, fire and brimstone, check. So, they did leave off husbands out of that list, you got me there, but starting with 6 it says "If your very own brother (man), or your son (man) or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods"....(paraphrase) no pity, no shield, put to death" So I would say that this does not single out women in your assertion that women are second class.

Also, technically, murder is the
Ok, Old Testament, fire and brimstone, check. So, they did leave off husbands out of that list, you got me there, but starting with 6 it says "If your very own brother (man), or your son (man) or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods"....(paraphrase) no pity, no shield, put to death" So I would say that this does not single out women in your assertion that women are second class.

Also, technically, murder is the unlawful killing. It doesn't say murder, it says put to death. Meaning I guess one could argue that the killing of someone who preaches about a false god can lawfully be put to death according to scripture. I would say we do the same thing if a soldier is convicted of treason. Now, we as a western society have put further restrictions on killing false prophets because we believe the exercise or lack thereof of religion is a free event. So yes, reading through this if someone went out and killed a false prophet, they might be put to death in accordance with man's laws, but might not otherwise be punished by God. Now, I am not sure what Jesus's stance was on this specific activity. He taught a lot about praying for your enemy, so he might have advocated praying for them instead of shanking them.
4:26PM on 08/15/2013
Also, I can safely agree that given the times of it's writing, women were probably treated as profoundly second class. So, don't you think that if the writers were so mysogonistic that it would be dripping throughout? Yet, the two examples you provide (so far) can easily be argued in the opposite.
Also, I can safely agree that given the times of it's writing, women were probably treated as profoundly second class. So, don't you think that if the writers were so mysogonistic that it would be dripping throughout? Yet, the two examples you provide (so far) can easily be argued in the opposite.
4:45PM on 08/15/2013
A generalization would have been me saying Yahweh is evil without going into further detail. Me stating the writers of the Bible were blatant sexists by giving three simple examples of how women are generally treated in the Bible was good enough. And if you really interpret versus I provided as the opposite of Yahweh being harsh then dear goodness, I worry what you thought about when he supposedly wiped out most of humanity (I'll get to this later).

Many Christians argue that a day to
A generalization would have been me saying Yahweh is evil without going into further detail. Me stating the writers of the Bible were blatant sexists by giving three simple examples of how women are generally treated in the Bible was good enough. And if you really interpret versus I provided as the opposite of Yahweh being harsh then dear goodness, I worry what you thought about when he supposedly wiped out most of humanity (I'll get to this later).

Many Christians argue that a day to Yahweh is different than our own days. So the six days it took to make the Earth could have been millions of years. Still, it doesn't matter because we all know the Earth is billions of years old based on geological reports taken via rock sediments. Even still, if you argue we spawned from Adam and Eve, it still doesn't explain when Yahweh killed everyone besides Noah and a few members of his family then that eventually broke off into the billions of people you see today. It still doesn't make sense.

Regarding the Ephesians verse I provided, even when you continue as you noted it still doesn't say anything about husbands submitting to their wives, it just says love them like you love Jesus not a women submit yourselves like you submit to the Lord. The context and instructions are completely different. I did not say men got a free pass, I said men got it far less badly than women did. Here is another set of versus for you to dissect and twist to make sound appropriate.

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

If you read any of the two above, it's clear Yahweh played favorites between the two sexes. There is really no other way of reading either of those versus--especially the second.

In regards to you defending the Old Testament, in no civilized society would it be okay to kill someone because they decided to worship another god or had a different belief system. Such systems today are called theocracies and they're littered with poor education, high poverty, and low mortality rates. To compare how the US addresses treason with how Yahweh addresses different faiths is completely different things, I would think. Yahweh is a just god, supposedly. He couldn't possibly be upset by a set of African tribe people who worship nature gods and pray to the sun for their yearly harvest if a set of Christian missionaries never set foot in their lands, could he? What about the hundreds of religions that were practiced before the Bible was ever written were they already screwed to an eternity in Hell? Or did Hell even exist since it's not even mentioned as anything other than Gehinnom in the Old Testament which isn't the fiery pit Jesus promised all the people who didn't follow he would go?
5:54PM on 08/15/2013
I'll have to get to the verses and get back to you. And I actually, have to head out, but on your last point on ancient civilizations. I mentioned this in the same question asked from Van. The answer is I don't know. And yes, I agree it's a suck answer, but I haven't seen it addressed so I can't say with certainty what happens. Are they sent straight to hell? Maybe. Or are they judged differently from those who were exposed to the Word? Could be. It probably won't matter then, but I'll try to
I'll have to get to the verses and get back to you. And I actually, have to head out, but on your last point on ancient civilizations. I mentioned this in the same question asked from Van. The answer is I don't know. And yes, I agree it's a suck answer, but I haven't seen it addressed so I can't say with certainty what happens. Are they sent straight to hell? Maybe. Or are they judged differently from those who were exposed to the Word? Could be. It probably won't matter then, but I'll try to remember to ask when I die. Now, I personally don't know how one could be judged without knowing the law. For example, if you're doing 55 through a town that has zero speed limt signs, how could you justifibly be busted for speeding? Anyway, I would also add that a non-believer is also different than someone who doesn't have knowledge. So I would say, yeah for someone exposed to the Word and who rejects it, they probably skip the $200 and go straight to hell, but someone who's never heard of it? I guess they could make it to heaven. I can freely admit there are things that I just don't know.
6:36PM on 08/15/2013
As you said, your answer isn't good enough. You concluded there's a possibility that those not exposed to the Lord's word have a chance of getting into Heaven (I guess they'll get a brief synopsis when they reach the Pearly gates) but those who have been exposed to the word and still reject it will likely go straight to Hell. This is completely baffling to me that you could consider this to be an okay process handled by a god that is often labeled as "just". It sounds very egocentric to me. But
As you said, your answer isn't good enough. You concluded there's a possibility that those not exposed to the Lord's word have a chance of getting into Heaven (I guess they'll get a brief synopsis when they reach the Pearly gates) but those who have been exposed to the word and still reject it will likely go straight to Hell. This is completely baffling to me that you could consider this to be an okay process handled by a god that is often labeled as "just". It sounds very egocentric to me. But then again, Yahweh is called a jealous god so I guess it makes sense he'd throw a temper tantrum because his creations didn't decide to follow him even though he willing gave them the free will to decide for themselves. Quite the clusterfuck.
7:33PM on 08/15/2013
[link] I found that rather interesting and much more informative than what I was able to provide.
[link] I found that rather interesting and much more informative than what I was able to provide.
7:36PM on 08/15/2013
Also even without reading the entire set of verses you just mentioned I don't see where either of those advocate abuse rape and murder of women.
Also even without reading the entire set of verses you just mentioned I don't see where either of those advocate abuse rape and murder of women.
8:13PM on 08/15/2013
Referring someone who is debating you to site organized by people that think like you is never a good idea (try looking for academic sources). But the website says what I feared, fundamentalists Christians (at least according to the site) believe Yahweh revealed himself to everyone through nature and those who don't accept him have already been judged. So if I were to have been born in Thailand prior to the introduction of Christianity, and everyone around me are heavy practitioners of Buddhism
Referring someone who is debating you to site organized by people that think like you is never a good idea (try looking for academic sources). But the website says what I feared, fundamentalists Christians (at least according to the site) believe Yahweh revealed himself to everyone through nature and those who don't accept him have already been judged. So if I were to have been born in Thailand prior to the introduction of Christianity, and everyone around me are heavy practitioners of Buddhism am I suppose to recognize I'm sinning if the religion I follow says nothing regarding sin? What about naturalist religions that believe rocks have trapped spirits within them? They clearly view nature differently because they haven't had a Christian influence. According to that site, their fate has already been determined. Once again, sounds like your messing with a very petty god.

In regards to the murder and rape of women, we were originally talking about misogyny, at which point I gave you examples and the verse I provided to you prior; regarding the killing of your child, wife, and brother if they disobey was one that was blatantly obvious that you blindly defended by saying killing and murdering under the laws at the time were essentially permissible. But if you insists on more cases of rape and murder, here you go...

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife." (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion." (Deuteronomy 21:10-14)

"Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city." (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

"You should not let a sorceress live." (Exodus 22:17)

"A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death." (Leviticus 20:27)

" But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. " (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)

9:00PM on 08/15/2013
You asked me a spiritual question about my belief why would I go to a website that has nothing to do with my belief and wouldn't have an answer? You've already answered your own question about the rock worshipper. There's nothing left to ponder in that regard. You can argue with me about the justness of the punishment but whatever my thoughts it doesn't change it. So you can either choose to still believe and try to live a Godly life or you can rebel and face the stated punishment. I think it
You asked me a spiritual question about my belief why would I go to a website that has nothing to do with my belief and wouldn't have an answer? You've already answered your own question about the rock worshipper. There's nothing left to ponder in that regard. You can argue with me about the justness of the punishment but whatever my thoughts it doesn't change it. So you can either choose to still believe and try to live a Godly life or you can rebel and face the stated punishment. I think it was from Rudy but it's something like I'm sure of two things. There is a God, and I'm not Him. So whether or not I agree with the sentence as it relates to the crime is irrelevant. I don't dispute it's awfully unfair to be condemned to an eternity of damnation for what I do for 70-80 years on planet earth, but I'm going to do my best to live in accordance with what God expects knowing that I am man and will continue to disappoint and let the chips fall where they may. So yeah if I die and end up in hell my first thought will be "Mother Fucker" and then after a brief pause "Oh Shit"
9:10PM on 08/15/2013
Also I'm not ignoring the rest of your post but if I look at my phone one more time my wife might just show me how a rib can regenerate. So I'll have to study those later.
Also I'm not ignoring the rest of your post but if I look at my phone one more time my wife might just show me how a rib can regenerate. So I'll have to study those later.
9:10PM on 08/15/2013
You don't go to a website orchestrated by your fellow thinkers in order to get validation. It's like being a Ford owner and someone that owns a Toyota tells you your car is crap and you refer them to a Ford website with raving reviews and test ratings as if you're making a point.
You don't go to a website orchestrated by your fellow thinkers in order to get validation. It's like being a Ford owner and someone that owns a Toyota tells you your car is crap and you refer them to a Ford website with raving reviews and test ratings as if you're making a point.
12:10PM on 08/14/2013
Hopefully they'll cast Jackie Chan as the Gigantic Disembodied Hand of God, parting the Red Sea with a powerful chopping motion!
Hopefully they'll cast Jackie Chan as the Gigantic Disembodied Hand of God, parting the Red Sea with a powerful chopping motion!
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
7:59AM on 08/14/2013
Actually, I think a sequel to Gladiator would have more historic accuracy than this Exodus movie.
Actually, I think a sequel to Gladiator would have more historic accuracy than this Exodus movie.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
-12
12:04AM on 08/14/2013

More Religious Fiction

It isn't bad enough that Prometheus was sloppily done, now Ridley wants to do a movie from badly written Bronze Age fantasy. At least Marvel plans their stories well when they prepare them for production.
It isn't bad enough that Prometheus was sloppily done, now Ridley wants to do a movie from badly written Bronze Age fantasy. At least Marvel plans their stories well when they prepare them for production.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
11:02PM on 08/13/2013

Which ignorant rube

Said this "I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent
Said this "I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations." - Albert Einstein
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
12:14PM on 08/14/2013
Einstein wouldn't be spouting such outmoded shite if he knew then what we know now. Knowledge has come a long way in the sixty years since Einstein died and didn't go off to meet his fictional Maker.
Einstein wouldn't be spouting such outmoded shite if he knew then what we know now. Knowledge has come a long way in the sixty years since Einstein died and didn't go off to meet his fictional Maker.
12:55PM on 08/14/2013
Cause you've died and seen the other side right?
Cause you've died and seen the other side right?
7:21PM on 08/14/2013
And you have?

Also, did you just call Einstein a rube? You racist bastard
And you have?

Also, did you just call Einstein a rube? You racist bastard
7:32PM on 08/14/2013
FACT: Einstein didn't believe in God.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
- Albert Einstein, 24 March 1954.
FACT: Einstein didn't believe in God.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
- Albert Einstein, 24 March 1954.
8:53PM on 08/14/2013
No but I also did not claim to know what happens after death. A rube is a hick and that wasn't an option on my census form.
No but I also did not claim to know what happens after death. A rube is a hick and that wasn't an option on my census form.
1:54AM on 08/15/2013
In your original post you used a quote from Albert Einstein to purportedly back up the existence of god, in part I suppose to attempt to belittle the atheist viewpoint - after all, if Einstein believes in god, and he was one of the smartest people ever, who are atheists to say otherwise, right? However, I have easily refuted your claim of Einstein's religious belief, rendering your original argument counter-productive and self-negating. Any thoughts?
In your original post you used a quote from Albert Einstein to purportedly back up the existence of god, in part I suppose to attempt to belittle the atheist viewpoint - after all, if Einstein believes in god, and he was one of the smartest people ever, who are atheists to say otherwise, right? However, I have easily refuted your claim of Einstein's religious belief, rendering your original argument counter-productive and self-negating. Any thoughts?
9:08PM on 08/13/2013
I think Ridley Scott would direct the hell out of a Biblical epic. Heh.
I think Ridley Scott would direct the hell out of a Biblical epic. Heh.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
9:18PM on 08/13/2013
HAH! lol
HAH! lol
8:45PM on 08/13/2013

In which protagonist VanHogTrio opens a can of worms

So explain to me why religion is so awesome then? And how exactly is atheism "ignorant" and "pathetic" as you put it?

The problem I have with so-called "religious" epics is that many people will unfortunately view these movies as historical fact rather than the made up stories that they clearly are.
So explain to me why religion is so awesome then? And how exactly is atheism "ignorant" and "pathetic" as you put it?

The problem I have with so-called "religious" epics is that many people will unfortunately view these movies as historical fact rather than the made up stories that they clearly are.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
9:07PM on 08/13/2013
My sentiments exactly. It's similar to how some call The Ten Commandments or The Passion of the Christ two of the best historical epics of our time when in reality both derive from one source, and that source certainly isn't historically accurate.
My sentiments exactly. It's similar to how some call The Ten Commandments or The Passion of the Christ two of the best historical epics of our time when in reality both derive from one source, and that source certainly isn't historically accurate.
9:23PM on 08/13/2013
Not historically accurate, nor even internally consistent as a piece of literature. Is it myth? Allegory? Parable? Historical fact? Even many theologians disagree.

And as a piece of literature, it's got some pretty glaring plot holes, some questionable moral implications drawn from the values and actions of some of its main characters, and on the whole the story just isn't very good.
Not historically accurate, nor even internally consistent as a piece of literature. Is it myth? Allegory? Parable? Historical fact? Even many theologians disagree.

And as a piece of literature, it's got some pretty glaring plot holes, some questionable moral implications drawn from the values and actions of some of its main characters, and on the whole the story just isn't very good.
7:48PM on 08/13/2013
Ahh the religion bashers coming out, such ignorance is to be expected it is pretty pathetic though can we just talk about the casting of the movie instead of taking shots at people's beliefs? On topic of this movie a Ridley Scott historical epic is great news I absolutely loved both Gladiator and Kingdom of Heave (Director's Cut), so this is great news. I am a fan of Joel Edgerton as well ever since I saw him in Warrior a couple of years back.
Ahh the religion bashers coming out, such ignorance is to be expected it is pretty pathetic though can we just talk about the casting of the movie instead of taking shots at people's beliefs? On topic of this movie a Ridley Scott historical epic is great news I absolutely loved both Gladiator and Kingdom of Heave (Director's Cut), so this is great news. I am a fan of Joel Edgerton as well ever since I saw him in Warrior a couple of years back.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
8:45PM on 08/13/2013
Honestly, I'd rather just take pot shots at your beliefs.
Honestly, I'd rather just take pot shots at your beliefs.
9:06PM on 08/13/2013
Religion bashers, really? Just because someone criticizes a project based on its content makes the criticizer pathetic? Interesting...
Religion bashers, really? Just because someone criticizes a project based on its content makes the criticizer pathetic? Interesting...
9:18PM on 08/13/2013
Yeah Roy, that's what I thought. Also, Thunderstorm makes the implication that a discussion of the religious aspects inherent to the plot of this movie is somehow "off topic" when it is, by definition, anything but.
Yeah Roy, that's what I thought. Also, Thunderstorm makes the implication that a discussion of the religious aspects inherent to the plot of this movie is somehow "off topic" when it is, by definition, anything but.
9:57PM on 08/13/2013
Also, there's a vast difference between a "historical" epic and a "religious" epic.

By the way, Maximus Decimus Meridius was a fictional character, not a historical one. Even Kingdom Of Heaven was very heavily fictionalised. Calling those "historical" epics are a gross exaggeration at best.
Also, there's a vast difference between a "historical" epic and a "religious" epic.

By the way, Maximus Decimus Meridius was a fictional character, not a historical one. Even Kingdom Of Heaven was very heavily fictionalised. Calling those "historical" epics are a gross exaggeration at best.
7:28PM on 08/13/2013
Yeah, I'd love to see more movies where delusional weirdos do everything their imaginary friend tells them to.


P.S. That was sarcasm.
Yeah, I'd love to see more movies where delusional weirdos do everything their imaginary friend tells them to.


P.S. That was sarcasm.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
2:40AM on 08/14/2013
Wow, another anti-religion post. You really are original. I am going to question faith entirely based on your insightful post.

P.S. That was also sarcasm.
Wow, another anti-religion post. You really are original. I am going to question faith entirely based on your insightful post.

P.S. That was also sarcasm.
7:33AM on 08/14/2013
Oh get off it. Nobody REALLY believes in God anymore anyway.
Oh get off it. Nobody REALLY believes in God anymore anyway.
7:35PM on 08/14/2013
@BrokenDreamer

I wouldn't expect you to question faith because the definition of faith is BELIEF WITHOUT PROOF.

P.S. That was irony.
@BrokenDreamer

I wouldn't expect you to question faith because the definition of faith is BELIEF WITHOUT PROOF.

P.S. That was irony.
7:25PM on 08/13/2013
That's a pretty intense duo casting right there with Bale and Edgerton.
That's a pretty intense duo casting right there with Bale and Edgerton.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
7:18PM on 08/13/2013
Scott doing a historical epic guarantees I'll be in the theater day one. Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven (director's cut, of course), were some of the best historical epics in the 2000's.
Scott doing a historical epic guarantees I'll be in the theater day one. Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven (director's cut, of course), were some of the best historical epics in the 2000's.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
9:04PM on 08/13/2013
This doesn't really count as "historical" since it didn't really happen.
This doesn't really count as "historical" since it didn't really happen.
9:51PM on 08/13/2013
+1 for Roy's comment.
+1 for Roy's comment.
10:01PM on 08/13/2013
Both Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven are not historical either, they are both heavily fictionalised.
Both Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven are not historical either, they are both heavily fictionalised.
6:59PM on 08/13/2013

No offense to Mr. Edgerton

But I want to see more Jason Clarke on the big screen. Joel Edgerton always seems to convey, disappointment, bored, content, and passive in every role he plays, Jason Clarke and Russell Crowe are my two favorite Aussies working right now.
But I want to see more Jason Clarke on the big screen. Joel Edgerton always seems to convey, disappointment, bored, content, and passive in every role he plays, Jason Clarke and Russell Crowe are my two favorite Aussies working right now.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
7:25PM on 08/13/2013
Jason Clarke is a really good solid actor. He was fantastic in Zero Dark Thirty, Great Gatsby, White House Down, and Lawless.
Jason Clarke is a really good solid actor. He was fantastic in Zero Dark Thirty, Great Gatsby, White House Down, and Lawless.
10:40AM on 08/15/2013
It's just how he looks. But I'm all for more Jason Clarke.
It's just how he looks. But I'm all for more Jason Clarke.
6:18PM on 08/13/2013
I'm still waiting on Ridley Scott's Shaka Zulu starring Matt Damon as the title character.

(Yes, that was sarcasm).
I'm still waiting on Ridley Scott's Shaka Zulu starring Matt Damon as the title character.

(Yes, that was sarcasm).
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
6:08PM on 08/13/2013
Because Egyptians look like Conan O'Brien.
Because Egyptians look like Conan O'Brien.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
6:01PM on 08/13/2013
I wonder if Ridley will tackle the part where Moses supposedly kills 3000 Cannaites and it's completely okay because it's what Yahweh wanted then follows up with killing being wrong according to one of the commandments.
I wonder if Ridley will tackle the part where Moses supposedly kills 3000 Cannaites and it's completely okay because it's what Yahweh wanted then follows up with killing being wrong according to one of the commandments.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
12:00AM on 08/14/2013
The accurate translation is that murder is wrong. Killing in war or under other self protective circumstances was considered OK according to the basic commandments all the way back to Hammurabi's time.
I think this movie is going to be simply a means of sucking money out of the pockets of American Christians, who will point to it as proof that their omnipotent Superfriend exists.
The accurate translation is that murder is wrong. Killing in war or under other self protective circumstances was considered OK according to the basic commandments all the way back to Hammurabi's time.
I think this movie is going to be simply a means of sucking money out of the pockets of American Christians, who will point to it as proof that their omnipotent Superfriend exists.
2:37AM on 08/14/2013
Unlikely that anyone would point to a movie as proof of God's existence. Seriously, that doesn't even make sense. You just wanted an excuse to bash Christians again, right?
Unlikely that anyone would point to a movie as proof of God's existence. Seriously, that doesn't even make sense. You just wanted an excuse to bash Christians again, right?
8:49AM on 08/14/2013
Did you say anything about your god's existence in my post? No. I was referring to the justification used by one of the prophets in the Bible to validate the mass ethnic cleansing of a group of people because they decided to worship another god. If you call that bashing than I guess we shouldn't judge the fundamentalist Muslims who are committing violent acts.
Did you say anything about your god's existence in my post? No. I was referring to the justification used by one of the prophets in the Bible to validate the mass ethnic cleansing of a group of people because they decided to worship another god. If you call that bashing than I guess we shouldn't judge the fundamentalist Muslims who are committing violent acts.
View All Comments

Latest Movie News Headlines


Top
Loading...
JoBlo's T-Shirt Shoppe | support our site... Wear Our Gear!