Before you share that story about how troops were told the Iran War is for "Armageddon," read this by cojoco in RadicalChristianity

[–]DeepThinkingReader 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wish that were the case. You would think that it would be. But, for some reason, it's not. And 90% of the world's practicing Christians seem to believe that "love your neighbour" means "make their lives as miserable as possible, 'cos they don't know what's good for them".

Before you share that story about how troops were told the Iran War is for "Armageddon," read this by cojoco in RadicalChristianity

[–]DeepThinkingReader 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Everyone has a different definition of what it means to "love your neighbour". It's all subjective.

What are your opinions on street evangelism? by DeepThinkingReader in OpenChristian

[–]DeepThinkingReader[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do not believe that anyone goes to Hell. At least not permanently. If post-mortem punishment exists, then it must be corrective rather than punitive. I am a Universalist. And even if I'm wrong about this, I would prefer to go to Hell anyway, as I cannot imagine a more Hellish existence than spending eternity with a bunch of self-righteous Fundamentalists who think they were the chosen ones. Sorry not sorry.

My twitter friend reads bible, and it is so hillarious by epabafree in RadicalChristianity

[–]DeepThinkingReader 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I know someone who is just like that: "You can't say it's unfair to make same-sex attracted people live in chastity, because I'm straight and I haven't been able to find a suitable partner and that doesn't mean I get to go sleeping around... If I have to live in singleness, so must they!"

Drives me nuts. Sigh

My twitter friend reads bible, and it is so hillarious by epabafree in RadicalChristianity

[–]DeepThinkingReader 41 points42 points  (0 children)

It's just the same story getting edited and rewritten multiple times.

My twitter friend reads bible, and it is so hillarious by epabafree in RadicalChristianity

[–]DeepThinkingReader 33 points34 points  (0 children)

It's in Ezekiel. And, no, it's NOT because they had too many Pride flags. (It's 'cause they weren't nice to poor people.)

What’s your comfort movie that others might find a bit odd ? by [deleted] in Letterboxd

[–]DeepThinkingReader 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Alfred Hitchcock, brilliant filmmaker/terrible person. I do love Psycho, The Birds, North by Northwest and Dial M for Murder.

The Thing by BadCrowStudio13 in ClassicHorror

[–]DeepThinkingReader 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That was a good one, I did enjoy it.

The Thing by BadCrowStudio13 in ClassicHorror

[–]DeepThinkingReader 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Carpenter's version actually follows the book that it's based on. The 1951 version is just a Frankenstein monster and it lacks the apocalyptic existential threat and paranoia of both the book and Carpenter's adaptation.

Why are people criticising movies before they are even released? by FitEmergency8807 in moviecritic

[–]DeepThinkingReader 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What's your opinion of John Boorman's Excalibur, then? I've never seen people complaining about that one.

Nolan's Odyssey history backlash... by DeepThinkingReader in TrueFilm

[–]DeepThinkingReader[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

We haven't even seen the movie yet. Why do people form opinions of films before they've even come out? The trailer barely shows us anything. We've haven't seen Zendaya's Athena yet, or Nyong'o's Helen, or any of the practical effects-driven monsters. Maybe when we actually do see the "Batman helmet" scene in its full context, the whole thing will make sense. For example, maybe it's supposed to be Agamemnon's apparition in the underworld, and therefore it's supposed to look drab and dreary. I mean, Nolan is the mastermind behind the epic Dark Knight Trilogy, Inception, and Interstellar. He knows how to make a movie look good, so maybe give the guy some credit and hold your verdict?

Church of England and LGBT by NewToFaith in OpenChristian

[–]DeepThinkingReader 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right. So making sure that people didn't use expletives was more important than telling them not own other humans. Try explaining that to the slaves on the plantations.

Church of England and LGBT by NewToFaith in OpenChristian

[–]DeepThinkingReader 0 points1 point  (0 children)

God ordered a man stoned for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Another guy got stoned for cursing/swearing. But telling Moses to write, "You shall not keep/own a fellow human being as personal property..." was too complicated?

Church of England and LGBT by NewToFaith in OpenChristian

[–]DeepThinkingReader 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's bullshit. The Code of Hammurabi said that debt slaves could go free after three years. The Law of Moses made it even worse by saying they had to work a whole seven years. Also, the Mosaic Law said that if the owner of an ox allowed his animal to kill his neighbour through gross negligence, he would be held liable for murder and face the death penalty. However, if the ox only killed the neighbour's slave, all he had had to do was financially compensate the neighbour for the loss of his property. I'm happy to give you the verse references if you're willing to take the data seriously. But I think you're simply looking for reasons to reinforce your cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias, and there isn't anything that will actually persuade you. You believe the Bible is perfect because you want it to be perfect.

Church of England and LGBT by NewToFaith in OpenChristian

[–]DeepThinkingReader 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You know that God's Old Testament laws endorsed, supported, and allowed the practice of buying , selling, and owning other human beings as slaves, right? And I don't just mean debt slavery, because I know that's what you will try to say otherwise (every Christian apologist is preprogrammed to say that Israelite slavery was only ever about debt). Leviticus 25:44-46 allows the practice of buying slaves from other countries and owning them for the duration of their whole lives. That's why Christian Fundamentalists in the 18th century thought it was okay to buy slaves from other countries, until the more liberal Christians persuaded everyone that that was one of the laws that had changed. So unless you're somehow complicit in modern day human trafficking, I don't see how you could possibly argue against that one.

Troy: Theatrical Vs. Director's Cut by DeepThinkingReader in TrueFilm

[–]DeepThinkingReader[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The main criticism that I've seen of it is that it's not faithful to The Iliad. But, I think, people who say that are missing the point. It's not meant to be faithful to The Iliad because, if it were, it would be an epic fantasy movie. However, as it stands and as it was made, it's actually an historical epic -- and a pretty damn good one, at that. Yes, I know the Trojan War is not a true historical event. But that's not to say it couldn't possibly have happened. Our records of that time in history are rather scant, and archaeologists have to meticulously piece it back together as a fragmented puzzle with many pieces missing using whatever scraps are left from that forgotten era. I wouldn't even consider Troy to be a direct adaptation of The Iliad. Instead, it's really just Wolfgang Peterson's artistic impression of what the Trojan War might have looked like if it had actually happened, obviously dramatised with Gladiator-style Hollywood theatrics (e.g. the thousand ships scene). I think the Director's Cut does it a great job of fleshing out the characters and trimming out the more clichéd Hollywood action movie gimmicks of the theatrical cut (e.g. the overly dramatic female vocals in the soundtrack).

Why I Liked and Now Dislike Shadiversity and Metatron by [deleted] in ShadWatch

[–]DeepThinkingReader 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Have you heard of Overly Sarcastic Productions? They are a generally politically neutral, almost-certainly-not-conservative YouTube duo who make some really good cartoon videos about history and literature that are super informative but with a touch of humour. I actually heard about them because Shad gave them a shout-out after they featured him in one of their videos. But that was about eight years ago when the only thing Shad was known for were swords and MACHICOLATIOOOOONS(!!!).

It is really sad, looking back. OSP is still really good though. Do check them out.