Recommend MANY MORE Movies vrs. 3 or something

[Shambles]

I wouldn't say that makes you a "bad Christian", Yella. I'd say it makes you a decent person who is influenced by Christianity but also accepts that the original instruction manual has some bad instruction in it. You're perfectly free to believe whatever you believe - just as I'm perfectly free to disbelieve what I disbelieve. I don't hide the fact that I loathe religion in all its forms so naturally I do like to have me lil digs sometimes. You make no bones about being religious and naturally come out to defend the faith sometimes. All is fair, all is balanced, all is good. (except religions cos they're just plain bad )

That aside, it's a decent film about interesting historical figures and events which is why I recommended it. Didn't bring it up just to point out that the Christians portrayed were evil fuckwads - that's just a bonus

And, to be fair, I did also say that even I thought it bordered on "pantomime villainy" at times - that's about as close as I get to saying nice things Christianity

(other religions are also available... and equally undesirable)

 

[Shambles]

I just read that the directer dressed Rachael Weiss in Purda for one shot Shambles when there were no such articles of clothings worn by early Christians or Greeks and I dont even think Mohammed had heard from Gabriel at that point.

Why?

I am not the director - you should probably ask him. Actually, you should possibly even consider actually watching the film before taking issue with it really.

The scene you mention is at a point just after Bishop Cyril reads a passage from the Bible (actually from the King James Bible as the director felt it was the least offensive version of the particular passage - so definitely an anachronism) that is essentially a rant about how women should be modest, not wear fine clothes or braided hair, should be silent and should cover their heads. It's a rather vital plot point as it sets up the whole ending of the film. I couldn't quote chapter and verse for you but I'm sure I don't need to. It's a direct quote from the Bible and its use at that point of the film is for a very specific reason and not necessarily to make a wider point. Although I suspect it may well be there for that reason too. Oppression of women in the church has Biblical authority. It's in the book and Christians tend to believe the book to be the inspired word of God, no?

 

[YellowPolkaDotHalo]

This is so key here Shambles.. Really. If you get what I'm trying to say you will be the first one to do so here so far. The Bible is the inspired word of God. But without the spirit between you and the reading the verse its just a rule. No life in it at all.

Its not like we are given a map (eg the bible) and told to drive. He imparts His spirit and chauffers us there

When the Spirit is involved in the reading it comes to Life in a way thats hard to describe and of course impossible to prove.


I know people who have belonged to churches for years.. really religious n that. But theres no spirit.. and this is where you see all your hypocritical, bigots.. and in all honesty I'm pretty rubbish when I run out of oil.

If what I wrote just looks like gibberish theres little point me going to the verses about the veil ( not purdah) Otherwise I'd love to show you how the above relates.

 

[Shambles]

And I've heard this said by many Christians (and followers of any other religion you care to name too). That's fine. I couldn't - and wouldn't - try to tell you your experience isn't real. To you at least, and to others who feel the same way about it. Personal revelation is just that: personal. That doesn't change the fact that there's some seriously fucked up "inspired words of god" in the book and that millions have acted on those fucked up sentiments over the last coupla millennia.

The events portrayed in the film are a moment in time when those hypocritical, "spiritless" bigots did some very shitty things and destroyed the vast majority of all the science, mathematics, philosophy, history (and the list goes on) of the entire ancient world. It was an unspeakable atrocity and the world is so much the poorer because of it. I think it's entirely fair for people to still be pissed off about it. Not pissed off with you or any other Christian today but with the mindless zealots in that place at that time who did those things. And, perhaps, of the parts of the book that very plainly seem to justify such actions (meaning more the oppression and persecution rather than the wanton destruction). Even the most fervent believer has to admit there's some seriously wrong-headed stuff in the Bible if you take it at its word.

 

[YellowPolkaDotHalo]

I'm off to bed now Shambles but I want you to know that I'm not going to watch the film not because I'm a bigot but because from your first post I could see that the film is full of distortions.


For example Rohter suggests the library had been damaged by numerous sects, empires etc.

“Roman-era chronicles, as well as later works, suggest that at least part of the library was destroyed when Julius Caesar invaded Egypt in 48 b.c., and that Christians were responsible only for the damage done in Hypatia’s time to a secondary ‘daughter library,’ which may also have been attacked by Muslim conquerors in the seventh century a.d.”

Shambles I want to go to bed but there are several other quotes from academics that provide evidence that( being a reasonable man) i'm sure had you been aware of them you might have been less inclined to go and watch the film.

I'll post some more on here or in a pm if you want to see more evidence.

 

[Shambles]

Larry Rohter is a journalist not an academic and the site you took that quote from is a Christian apologetics site and - somewhat unsurprisingly - I don't believe a word such people say cos they are notoriously full of shit and lie for a living. The author also makes it very clear that he has never seen the film himself and never would on principle.

You are, however, correct (so I stand corrected) that the Library as it existed in 391 was a greatly slimmed-down version of the original so I'll retract the bit about the scale of the intellectual vandalism. Was still a less than shining example of enlightened spiritual behaviour but not as bad as I made out. The overall themes of the film are still relevant either way cos it doesn't dwell on the destruction of the Library particularly anyway. It's obviously a plot point though (and with a particularly lovely piece of camerawork too). As are other things. It's a film. About stuff. Some of which is apparently historically accurate, some of it definitely not. Which is what I said in the original post about it.

The plot of the entire film more or less can be summed up in two paragraphs taken from eHistory:

The second story of the Library's destruction is more popular, thanks primarily to Edward Gibbon's "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". But the story is also a tad more complex. Theophilus was Patriarch of Alexandria from 385 to 412 AD. During his reign the Temple of Serapis was converted into a Christian Church (probably around 391 AD) and it is likely that many documents were destroyed then. The Temple of Serapis was estimated to hold about ten percent of the overall Library of Alexandria's holdings. After his death, his nephew Cyril became Patriarch. Shortly after that, riots broke out when Hierax, a Christian monk, was publicly killed by order of Orestes the city Prefect. Orestes was said to be under the influence of Hypatia, a female philosopher and daughter of the "last member of the Library of Alexandria". Although it should be noted that some count Hypatia herself as the last Head Librarian.

Alexandria had long been known for its violent and volatile politics. Christians, Jews and Pagans all lived together in the city. One ancient writer claimed that there was no people who loved a fight more than those of Alexandria. Immediately after the death of Hierax a group of Jews who had helped instigate his killing lured more Christians into the street at night by proclaiming that the Church was on fire. When the Christians rushed out the largely Jewish mob slew many of them. After this there was mass havoc as Christians retaliated against both the Jews and the Pagans - one of which was Hypatia. The story varies slightly depending upon who tells it but she was taken by the Christians, dragged through the streets and murdered.

The History of the Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire is a pretty standard work on the subject. Yes it's true that other historians since disagree with some of it and the reality was no doubt far more complex. History is always a work in progress - nobody can ever truly know all the details of anything that happened so far back so there will always be differing viewpoints. The film clearly sticks fairly closely to one of those viewpoints.

PS: I originally heard of the film when it was recommended in a lecture about ancient Greco-Roman technology given by a historian who specialises in both the early Christian church and the science and technology of Greek and Roman antiquity. He recommended it as being what he considered as the most accurate cinematic depiction of this particular time and place in history. Does my pet academic beat yours? Or is it just that there are opinions and evidence on both sides? If somebody else makes a film that presents a different perspective than this one does then I'd watch that with interest too.

 

[YellowPolkaDotHalo]

Larry Rohter is a journalist not an academic and the site you took that quote from is a Christian apologetics site and - somewhat unsurprisingly - I don't believe a word such people say cos they are notoriously full of shit and lie for a living. The author also makes it very clear that he has never seen the film himself and never would on principle.

You are, however, correct (so I stand corrected) that the Library as it existed in 391 was a greatly slimmed-down version of the original so I'll retract the bit about the scale of the intellectual vandalism. Was still a less than shining example of enlightened spiritual behaviour but not as bad as I made out. The overall themes of the film are still relevant either way cos it doesn't dwell on the destruction of the Library particularly anyway. It's obviously a plot point though (and with a particularly lovely piece of camerawork too). As are other things. It's a film. About stuff. Some of which is apparently historically accurate, some of it definitely not. Which is what I said in the original post about it.

The plot of the entire film more or less can be summed up in two paragraphs taken from eHistory:



The History of the Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire is a pretty standard work on the subject. Yes it's true that other historians since disagree with some of it and the reality was no doubt far more complex. History is always a work in progress - nobody can ever truly know all the details of anything that happened so far back so there will always be differing viewpoints. The film clearly sticks fairly closely to one of those viewpoints.

PS: I originally heard of the film when it was recommended in a lecture about ancient Greco-Roman technology given by a historian who specialises in both the early Christian church and the science and technology of Greek and Roman antiquity. He recommended it as being what he considered as the most accurate cinematic depiction of this particular time and place in history. Does my pet academic beat yours? Or is it just that there are opinions and evidence on both sides? If somebody else makes a film that presents a different perspective than this one does then I'd watch that with interest too.

I havn't posted anything by my academics yet lol.. I've got a good mate who knows more about the era than me and I've asked her to send me her notes... Is that ok?

I cant remember where I got that Rohter quote from and I dont have the history.. do you know where he made that quote? (New York Times I thought originally.) I'd like to read a few other bits and pieces from around that area that I didn't bookmark.

 

[Shambles]

I'm fairly sure you took that quote from here, Yella. It's originally taken from a New York Times article but I doubt that's available online unless they archive back issues going back several years. Check their site maybe. He's basically paraphrasing the eHistory article I linkied above but skips the rather important part of it...

So who did burn the Library of Alexandria? Unfortunately most of the writers from Plutarch (who apparently blamed Caesar) to Edward Gibbons (a staunch atheist or deist who liked very much to blame Christians and blamed Theophilus) to Bishop Gregory (who was particularly anti-Moslem, blamed Omar) all had an axe to grind and consequently must be seen as biased. Probably everyone mentioned above had some hand in destroying some part of the Library's holdings. The collection may have ebbed and flowed as some documents were destroyed and others were added. For instance, Mark Antony was supposed to have given Cleopatra over 200,000 scrolls for the Library long after Julius Caesar is accused of burning it.

Three sources, all flawed. Pays yer money, takes yer choice. I'm sure there are as many interpretations of all three sources as there are historians. And, as I said, I'd be happy to watch films that choose to portray any of those viewpoints. Would you? Or do you only watch stuff you know in advance agrees with your existing opinion? I'm sure that's not the case but it does seem to be a bit of a theme with religious folk.

 

[parttime crackhead]

Yella - Do you automatically reject all films that you don't think are 100% historically accurate? Or just ones involving Christianity?

 

[YellowPolkaDotHalo]

Yella - Do you automatically reject all films that you don't think are 100% historically accurate? Or just ones involving Christianity?

No PTCH.. is that what you think of me?

Propaganda feels controlling, its stirs up hatred out of lies. No I 'd rather make a conscious decision not to watch it. Regardless of the movie or theme.

Its a shame because it looks like a blinding movie but from the original write up of Shams or the vids I could see they had made a huge mistake in asking the RC church if it was Ok to show the Orthodox church in an unvavourable light. I'm sure the bishop was rubbing his hands together in glee as they left the vatican.

Shambles I'm not religious... but I tell you what I will gladly give a fiver to anyone that can come up with an adequate, original, definition for the words 'Religion' and 'religious'. Just a few lines or a paragraph.

 

[Shambles]

Let me guess, Yella... would you perhaps describe yourself as summat like: "I'm not religious, I just have a relationship with Jesus"? Or words to that effect anyway.

Why would anybody need to provide an "original" definition of religion? What's wrong with the one that everybody knows and understands? Shall I also redefine other words that have clear definitions but maybe have also developed somewhat negative connotation for some? Or would that just be kinda silly?

Whether the Christians of 4th Century Alexandria would now be thought of as Orthodox or Catholic is somewhat irrelevant really. They are still recognised saints and martyrs claimed by both afaik. And aside from that, they are simply self-defined Christians of that time and that place. Why is this so offensive to you?

That aside, as to the film itself, it's actually not a blinding movie. It's an interesting movie about something I've never seen a film made about before. I actually didn't even think of any Christian connotations when I acquired it. All I knew about it in advance was that it was a film about the Library at Alexandria. I've been fascinated by the mythos of the place since I was a kid obssessed with Greek and Roman stuff. The bit in Cosmos when Carl Sagan waxes lyrical about all the treasure of knowledge that were lost when it went bye-bye brings a tear to my eye even now. This is why I watched it - didn't even occur to me that the Bad Christian stuff would be so much a part of it. And I also said even I thought it was a tad overdone on that side. It's a decent film about an interesting time and place is all.

 

[Kronos]

Back on topic, is the bourne series of film worth watching? Oh and the kill bills, and the 'scary movies'. Pleasant lapse and in a mood to comfily watch a film

 

[parttime crackhead]

No PTCH.. is that what you think of me?

That is how you've came across in your recent posts in this thread. I've never once seen you question the accuracy of a film & cite that as a reason not to watch it. Funnily enough, this one seems to be having a little bit of a dig at Christianity. I suspect if this film had nothing to do with religion then you wouldn't have even considered checking how accurate it was.

 

[Shambles]

If I didn't know better I might even think such curious obsession with negative portrayals of ancient Christians had some kinda... religious sentiment behind it. Couldn't be that though. Definitely not. Not oor Yella!

My definition of religion? Faith in the existence of a god or gods of any description.

EDIT: In film news, I absolutely adored those 50s/60s Biblical epics. Could watch 'em over and over. Despite them all being wildly historically inaccurate.

 

[tragiclemming]

Once upon a time in the west had some airtime recently. Fantastic film, with the harmonica sound ruthlessly sampled by the Orb in 'Little Fluffy Clouds.'
Paris Texas - A quirky oddball of a film which I also quite enjoyed. More Orb samples to be found here.

 

[Mental Kenny]

Back on topic, is the bourne series of film worth watching? Oh and the kill bills, and the 'scary movies'. Pleasant lapse and in a mood to comfily watch a film

The first three Bourne films are great, the first Kill Bill I very much enjoyed as well.

 

[brimz]

The Rza

The Man With the Iron Fists Red Band Trailer

It's the fookin RZA

 

[YellowPolkaDotHalo]

Let me guess, Yella... would you perhaps describe yourself as summat like: "I'm not religious, I just have a relationship with Jesus"? Or words to that effect anyway.

No that sounds a bit naff lol.. I just say I believe in God. If people want to know more they'll ask.
Ive got an unusual cross around my neck that often sparks conversations (you might have seen it in a pic thread or somewhere). Sometimes I tuck in sometimes like I said.. cant be arsed. Theres no right or wrong with that... just wrong time, wrong person to tell maybe ((shrug))dunno.
I've probably shared more about my faith to eadders than several people that I've known for years and have neverfelt inclined to talk to them about Theology or God.

Why would anybody need to provide an "original" definition of religion? What's wrong with the one that everybody knows and understands? Shall I also redefine* other words that have clear definitions but maybe have also developed somewhat negative connotation for some? Or would that just be kinda silly?

There is no original one size fits all definition. I studied a bit of Sociology and there are whole chapters on that topic alone 'what is religion/religiousness'..
Your entry.. 'Belief in God' is a rubbish answer so no fiver.

*'Shall I also redefine etc...' is just kinda silly aye.

Whether the Christians of 4th Century Alexandria would now be thought of as Orthodox or Catholic is somewhat irrelevant really. They are still recognised saints and martyrs claimed by both afaik. And aside from that, they are simply self-defined Christians of that time and that place. Why is this so offensive to you?

It wasn't offensive exactly Shambles. I just had to call you out on the post. It was full of, to be blunt, really hateful, rhetoric about Christians... So when I saw that the producers were ' fair enough to make the trip to the Vatican etc' (words to that effect).. I wanted to call you out on their school boy error basically. The 'bigoted, hateful, homo phobic, snarling, vicious, conservative, drs receptionist Christians' would have been Orthodox so the films researchers should have asked a patriarch gracefully for permission to slag the church off.

That aside, as to the film itself, it's actually not a blinding movie. It's an interesting movie about something I've never seen a film made about before. I actually didn't even think of any Christian connotations when I acquired it. All I knew about it in advance was that it was a film about the Library at Alexandria. I've been fascinated by the mythos of the place since I was a kid obssessed with Greek and Roman stuff. The bit in Cosmos when Carl Sagan waxes lyrical about all the treasure of knowledge that were lost when it went bye-bye brings a tear to my eye even now. This is why I watched it - didn't even occur to me that the Bad Christian stuff would be so much a part of it. And I also said even I thought it was a tad overdone on that side. It's a decent film about an interesting time and place is all.

I love the era too and feel sad and angry when I think what was done there in Gods name. Truely!

 

[Shambles]

I fail to see your problem with a film that only trashes Christians Who Are Not You then, Yella. It's an interesting film. Set in an era you are interested in. So why all the bollocks about propaganda when you have almost as much of Orthodox Christianity of that era as I do? Why do such distant cousins cause such issues for you? And they clearly do or the discussion of this film would've ended shortly after I posted it.

I see you skimmed over the definition of religion I gave you even though you asked for one. Sort of. You basically conform to it though by your own words so I fail to see why you have a problem with me using the R word about your beliefs. You have a faith and/or belief in a god. Therefore you are religious. It's simple enough. You almost seem ashamed of it. I couldn't begin to imagine why.

Maybe you could just either watch the film and comment on it as a film or perhaps it's best to end this quasi-theological twaddle. I suspect we are both well aware of each others' position on such issues and it's a shame that religion should come between us. Albeit not a problem from my side. Kinda odd that it should seem more squeamish from yours but heyho. Gotta luv the conflicted... or is that afflicted? Never can recall quite what it says in that bewildering book of yours

 

[YellowPolkaDotHalo]

Let me guess, Yella... would you perhaps describe yourself as summat like: "I'm not religious, I just have a relationship with Jesus"? Or words to that effect anyway.

No that sounds a bit naff lol.. I just say I believe in God. If people want to know more they'll ask.
Ive got an unusual cross around my neck that often sparks conversations (you might have seen it in a pic thread or somewhere). Sometimes I tuck in sometimes like I said.. cant be arsed. Theres no right or wrong with that... just wrong time, wrong person to tell maybe ((shrug))dunno.
I've probably shared more about my faith to eadders than several people that I've known for years and have neverfelt inclined to talk to them about Theology or God.

Why would anybody need to provide an "original" definition of religion? What's wrong with the one that everybody knows and understands? Shall I also redefine* other words that have clear definitions but maybe have also developed somewhat negative connotation for some? Or would that just be kinda silly?

There is no original one size fits all definition. I studied a bit of Sociology and there are whole chapters on that topic alone 'what is religion/religiousness'.. 'Belief in God' is a rubbish answer so no fiver.

*'Shall I also redefine etc...' is just kinda silly aye.

Whether the Christians of 4th Century Alexandria would now be thought of as Orthodox or Catholic is somewhat irrelevant really. They are still recognised saints and martyrs claimed by both afaik. And aside from that, they are simply self-defined Christians of that time and that place. Why is this so offensive to you?

It wasn't offensive exactly Shambles. I just had to call you out on the post. It was full of, to be blunt, really hateful, rhetoric about Christians... So when I saw that the producers were ' fair enough to make the trip to the Vatican etc' (words to that effect).. I wanted to call you out on their school boy error basically. The 'bigoted, hateful, homo phobic, snarling, vicious, conservative, drs receptionist Christians' would have been Orthodox so the films researchers should have asked a patriarch gracefully for permission to slag the church off.

That aside, as to the film itself, it's actually not a blinding movie. It's an interesting movie about something I've never seen a film made about before. I actually didn't even think of any Christian connotations when I acquired it. All I knew about it in advance was that it was a film about the Library at Alexandria. I've been fascinated by the mythos of the place since I was a kid obssessed with Greek and Roman stuff. The bit in Cosmos when Carl Sagan waxes lyrical about all the treasure of knowledge that were lost when it went bye-bye brings a tear to my eye even now. This is why I watched it - didn't even occur to me that the Bad Christian stuff would be so much a part of it. And I also said even I thought it was a tad overdone on that side. It's a decent film about an interesting time and place is all.

I love the era too and feel sad and angry when I think what was done there in Gods name. Truely!