AuthorTopic: Movie review: Noah  (Read 13659 times)

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 42027
    • View Profile
Re: Movie review: Noah
« Reply #45 on: April 02, 2014, 04:59:52 PM »
I'm just pointing out how badly you are misrepresenting Biblical doctrines. At first, one could conclude it was unintentional on your part, but now not so much.

Moriarty suffers from HMRS, Habitual Misrepresentation Syndrome. He's become so accustomed to shilling bullshit for the fracking industry he's not even aware of it when he writes misrepresentations.  To him, it's Truth with a Capital T handed down to him in Rocks for Jocks School.  ::)

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Petty Tyrant

  • Cannot be Saved
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 4573
    • View Profile
Re: Movie review: Noah
« Reply #46 on: April 02, 2014, 08:04:10 PM »
you do recall this thread is about the FLOOD utilized as a weapon of mass destruction, right? 

I thought it was about trying to ridicule peak oilers…….

May I recommend…yet again….a proper reading what is written prior to making up what you HOPE or DREAM it says instead?

Quote from: Uncle Bob
...it was started by you and you dont come here for anything else.

see above…which has been told to you before…I recommend some memory exercises….perhaps supplements?

Quote from: Uncle Bob
Claiming we know nothing, you are the expert, but offer no arguments to the point other than false analogy. Claim peak oilers have a belief like rapture when you yourself believe the answer to peak oil is to leave planet earth.

To be honest, you are about the only one who appears to approach knowing "nothing", most others certainly seem to know…something…about stuff…..and if they don't know much about oil and gas does it really matter? What is more amusing, and telling, is how they choose to better educate themselves (or not) on the points involved.

As far as the relationship between peak oil believers and rapturists, well, that connection has always struck me as fairly obvious. Perhaps the concept should not be limited to just peak oil and rapturists, but zealots in general? It is the zealotry that is the defining characteristic? Doesn't matter the topic?

A bit ridiculous suggesting people read what you delete. last check digitspan recall forwards of 9 and backwards of 7, but thats a while ago so lets check if ive developed alzheimers since; where was I, oh yeah thats right now I remember back in the bullpit with Alfadog King.

I wanted to check my notes but couldnt remember where I put them but was it you who said some peakoiler was advocating racial/cultural genocde, but when asked to point out where and when you flaked. But I dont recall the name now. We cant search under your posts, we can search under surly who said 'called, raise or fold' Do YOU remember that?

Gails an idiot  but you wont point out why because you did it on another forum in another time and it would take too long to form a rational critique. But you do have time to  repeat the mantra she dont know dick. Rinse and repeat for all doomers, right?

Zealotry in advocating BAU is analogous to rapture beliefs because it means taking no action and all will be fine, as opposed to doomerism zeal which usually involves radical rethink and reshift of priorities.





ELEVATE YOUR GAME

Offline MKing

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
Re: Movie review: Noah
« Reply #47 on: April 02, 2014, 09:24:54 PM »
No, this thread is about you misrepresenting biblical doctrine, basically admitting you are misrepresenting it and refusing to stop.

Baloney. I am not required to only buy into YOUR representation of the Second Coming, using only YOUR chosen references and interpretation. That is not misrepresentation, it is questioning your ability to interpret the future any better than anyone else.

Quote from: Ashvin
Once again, I'm not claiming one is more accurate than the other. I'm claiming they are, in fact, different theological worldviews with very different core doctrines. You, otoh, are trying to lump everything together. 

Christianity is Christianity, you want to argue theological interpretation between your sect and another…have at it. That the different sects exist, and have different interpretations, is itself proof that you don't have a lock on the interpretation of the Second Coming. So please, don't try and pretend only your interpretation matters, because your book is somehow more special, your interpretation more right, your path more blessed, because all those others Christian sects…they say the SAME thing.

Quote from: Ashvin
Quote from: MKing
I have no objection to the Bible as a fundamental piece of propaganda that you can configure in any form or fashion you wish. But I also allow all others to use it the same way, recognizing no value difference in your interpretation over theirs. Or David Koresh's.

How are you so confident in your conclusions about the Bible when, admittedly, you are generally uninformed about its philosophy and theology?

Which conclusion? That it is internally inconsistent? That is generally established by reading it. The conclusion that it is propaganda? Easy….here is the wiki definition of propaganda….

Quote from: Wiki
Propaganda is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of a population toward some cause or position.

If that doesn't peg THE Bible (King James version, in hotel rooms around the country) then I don't know what is.

The real question is not whether or not it is propaganda, but what is the intent and direction of those wishing to do the influencing. Obviously the Bible has been around a long time, and Christians sects have chosen different interpretations because they wish to cause different influences, but WHY. The original intent may have been pure, but it didn't take long for the sects to begin to form, the fragmentation of interpretation, all of them designed with a different intent in mind, a different attitude they wished to influence, pushing society this way or that.

Quote from: Ashvin
Quote
Based on nothing more than the established history of how religion and the Bible has been used in the past, I would assign a high level of probability that it was DESIGNED to be internally inconsistent, that future generations could find within it whatever excuse they needed to justify anything and everything they might wish.

Well then it should be pretty easy for you to start listing those internal inconsistencies, instead of just stating they exist.

Sure. God murders with wild abandon. And then in the ultimate hypocrisy, orders humans to not do so.

So….do we do as God does, or do we listen to God and do the opposite?

This isn't hard at all….if I were now in front of a congregation, I can choose the position I wish to defend, and use God's words to back them up. Hear me my flock! Go forth and murder with gleeful abandon <fill in some reason> because God thought it was a good way to cure the wicked hisself! Or, conversely, Hear me my flock! Go forth and become vegetarian because Thou Shalt Not Murder includes the animals because <fill in some reason>!

See what you can learn from even a little Bible reading, and a desire to actually THINK about what has been written, rather than just swallowing someone else's interpretation? I realize just being gullible and nodding vigorously is as time tested a method of obvious compliance in a church pew as it is in peak oil circles, but I am a big fan of thinking for myself.

Question everything, because the more certain someone is, the less likely they are to understand the basics of even how little they actually know. Socrates was really, really right on this one.
Sometimes one creates a dynamic impression by saying something, and sometimes one creates as significant an impression by remaining silent.
-Dalai Lama

Offline Ashvin

  • Troll
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 3205
    • View Profile
Re: Movie review: Noah
« Reply #48 on: April 03, 2014, 05:11:11 AM »
Baloney. I am not required to only buy into YOUR representation of the Second Coming, using only YOUR chosen references and interpretation. That is not misrepresentation, it is questioning your ability to interpret the future any better than anyone else.

You are not required to do anything. But if you would like to be somewhat informed and intellectually honest, you should make some effort to research the Bible's clear statements on the Second Coming.

Quote from: Ashvin
Christianity is Christianity, you want to argue theological interpretation between your sect and another…have at it. That the different sects exist, and have different interpretations, is itself proof that you don't have a lock on the interpretation of the Second Coming. So please, don't try and pretend only your interpretation matters, because your book is somehow more special, your interpretation more right, your path more blessed, because all those others Christian sects…they say the SAME thing.

So I guess your interpretation of oil & gas data is no better than the peak oilers or anyone else's, because different interpretations of the data exist and people who hold to those different interpretations claim theirs is better than yours?

Hypocrisy, indeed.

Quote
Which conclusion? That it is internally inconsistent? That is generally established by reading it. The conclusion that it is propaganda? Easy….here is the wiki definition of propaganda….

"Propaganda is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of a population toward some cause or position."

If that doesn't peg THE Bible (King James version, in hotel rooms around the country) then I don't know what is.

That pegs every form of political and civic communication, including what you, I and everyone else does on this forum.

Quote
The real question is not whether or not it is propaganda, but what is the intent and direction of those wishing to do the influencing. Obviously the Bible has been around a long time, and Christians sects have chosen different interpretations because they wish to cause different influences, but WHY. The original intent may have been pure, but it didn't take long for the sects to begin to form, the fragmentation of interpretation, all of them designed with a different intent in mind, a different attitude they wished to influence, pushing society this way or that.

Sure, external ideological agendas were certainly a factor. More often than not, though, it was primarily motivated by a genuine intent to be more faithful to scripture.

Either way, it's logically incoherent to suggest that the existence of multiple interpretive frameworks, which then lead to different sects, renders all of them equally valid or invalid.

Quote from: Ashvin
Sure. God murders with wild abandon. And then in the ultimate hypocrisy, orders humans to not do so.

So….do we do as God does, or do we listen to God and do the opposite?

Even assuming God does "murder with wild abandon", that is not an internal inconsistency, it is hypocrisy (as you say). It is also quite a stretch to call the Creator's taking of life in judgment for sin "murder".Once again you are playing fast and loose with terms that you don't quite understand (or, more likely, you do understand them, but you don't care to use them properly).

Quote
This isn't hard at all….if I were now in front of a congregation, I can choose the position I wish to defend, and use God's words to back them up. Hear me my flock! Go forth and murder with gleeful abandon <fill in some reason> because God thought it was a good way to cure the wicked hisself! Or, conversely, Hear me my flock! Go forth and become vegetarian because Thou Shalt Not Murder includes the animals because <fill in some reason>!

It would be equally easy to rebut such proclamations using the Bible (not "some reason").

The fact is that there will always be a large % of the population who accept the Bible as God's word along with other holy texts. That becomes truly dangerous when people like you go around telling others that any interpretation of those texts is as good as the next.

Quote
See what you can learn from even a little Bible reading, and a desire to actually THINK about what has been written, rather than just swallowing someone else's interpretation? I realize just being gullible and nodding vigorously is as time tested a method of obvious compliance in a church pew as it is in peak oil circles, but I am a big fan of thinking for myself.

Question everything, because the more certain someone is, the less likely they are to understand the basics of even how little they actually know. Socrates was really, really right on this one.

You are simply parroting what vocal Bible skeptics have been claiming about it for centuries.

To really think about something, you need to read it and reflect on it and consult the research of others who have spent more time doing the same and publishing. Clearly you have no desire to do that.

You have more blind faith in your ability to dissect the Bible than most "true believers".
« Last Edit: April 03, 2014, 05:14:07 AM by Ashvin »

Offline MKing

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
Re: Movie review: Noah
« Reply #49 on: April 03, 2014, 07:35:45 AM »
Zealotry in advocating BAU is analogous to rapture beliefs because it means taking no action and all will be fine, as opposed to doomerism zeal which usually involves radical rethink and reshift of priorities.

I don't know of anyone on any Doomer forum who is a zealot for BAU.

Rethinking, shifting, growing a garden or becoming Amish doesn't require hyperventilating oneself into a fever over imagined consequences of human activity somewhere off in the future.

Hell, Doomers should maybe pay more attention to the MSM advertising, might help them out from needing excuses to live the life they want.






Sometimes one creates a dynamic impression by saying something, and sometimes one creates as significant an impression by remaining silent.
-Dalai Lama

Offline jdwheeler42

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3339
    • View Profile
    • Going Upslope
Re: Movie review: Noah
« Reply #50 on: April 03, 2014, 10:36:41 PM »
Rethinking, shifting, growing a garden or becoming Amish doesn't require hyperventilating oneself into a fever over imagined consequences of human activity somewhere off in the future.

Hell, Doomers should maybe pay more attention to the MSM advertising, might help them out from needing excuses to live the life they want.
The problem with "becoming Amish", Mr. Simply-Do-It, is that, to the best of my knowledge, no one has done so in several centuries.  Everyone who is Amish was born into that community.  While I wouldn't be surprised if there have been a few exceptions, they have not be well-noted and thus provide a poor example to follow.  And while you can go off and just live on a solo doomstead, that is not the same as having a community like the Amish have for mutual support.

And having a community requires some kind of shared vision.  Whether an apocalyptic one is a good one or not is definitely debatable.  On the one hand it tends to bring people together quicker, on the other it also tends to fall apart more quickly, especially if you put any kind of a date on said apocalypse and it doesn't materialize.
Making pigs fly is easy... that is, of course, after you have built the catapult....

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1035 Views
Last post January 23, 2017, 04:12:45 PM
by Guest
5 Replies
1385 Views
Last post October 05, 2018, 01:41:21 PM
by azozeo
0 Replies
240 Views
Last post February 10, 2019, 12:31:21 PM
by Eddie