Active Users:154 Time:24/05/2024 04:52:56 AM
Yes, I gave Shyamalan too much credit in believing he would not have such a dumb allegory Cannoli Send a noteboard - 01/02/2023 02:20:08 AM

"What if Christians tried to force nonbelievers to murder others because of their own beliefs?"

"Do they do that? Like, ever?"

"No, but it would look really bad if we could show them doing that!"

View original post
The pesky kooks knocking at the cabin to proselytize are stand-ins for the Christian right’s attempts to impose their religious beliefs on others.

What Christian extremists do is force you to behave in a way that will prevent you from coming to spiritual harm. There is literally no Christian belief or teaching about definite worldly consequences to spiritual actions.

On the other hand, it would fit a lot better with environmentalists or racial/gender activists, who DO make demands on non-believers to act against their own interests to avert something bad their beliefs warn will happen.

The words and actions of the wackos correspond to religious dogma or superstitious mumbo jumbo, depending on your particular view of the subject, as well as religious extremism. The scenes of supposed apocalyptic eschatology are simply part of the content of the Bible.

The point of which is that the end of the world is the ultimate triumph. Handle's "Messiah" is structured chronologically relating to the life of Jesus, and the Halleluiah chorus comes in at the end, for the Second Coming. The Halleluiah Chorus is about the Apocalypse. The most cheerful and upbeat funeral song ever, "When the Saints Go Marching In", is about the Apocalypse. OTOH, the same people who demonize Christians and see them as a massive threat to a free society, also see imminent apocalypses from a mild flu or the polar ice caps or greenhouse effects or nuclear winter or deforestation or school shootings.
Not asking that important question comes across as less of an omission than it does to being rather key to the statement being made. Refusing to sacrifice one of their own a la Abraham and Isaac — or oneself a la Jesus — is the middle finger to (belief in) God.

Again, a misdirected idea, since the point of the story of Abraham is that his God is not like all the other gods and utterly rejects the concept of human sacrifice. The reason we find the story so problematic and the demand so inexplicable and are more horrified by Abraham's initial acquiescence than impressed by his faith, is BECAUSE the prohibition on such sacrifices handed down from Heaven has MADE it so antithetical to our society thousands of years later. To someone of Abraham's time, it was a perfectly normal, acceptable and reasonable demand for a god to make (e.g. The Illiad). The narrative gets strung along as far as it does to make a point to the contemporaries of Abraham, Moses and the Israelites that Abraham's faith is no less than that of Agamemnon, that the Jews (and later, Christians) refrain from human sacrifice not out of a selfish refusal to offer up what is most precious, but because their God is awesome and would never demand it, and would rather instead make that Sacrifice Himself. The whole point of the link between Abraham, Issac and Jesus is precisely that God does not ask us to sacrifice lives to him, but instead sacrifices Himself for us. The point is that it is voluntary, not imposed, and without an "or else" impelling it.

Again, a dumb allegory.

How well or fair this will be presented is another matter, but it sure seems like the concept for the movie came from an antitheist.

Allegory only works if it works on both levels. First of all, the trailer suggests that there are real and direct consequences to the refusal and that this not merely their beliefs, but a factual consequence. My point was that the consequence was immaterial to the demand and insufficient for anyone to overcome. At worst, stripped of all other context, the Biblical sacrifice is a Sophie's Choice between two loved ones (God vs Issac) for Abraham. You don't criticize such a choice being imposed by substituting an inferior one (family member vs faceless strangers) or a radically different one (sacrifice loved one as an act of devotion to God or sacrifice loved one to avert immediate and drastic material consequence).

“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
Reply to message
Movie trailers are not giving me much hope for the immediate future - 23/01/2023 10:11:01 PM 505 Views
The other correct answer is "the more annoying child", right? - 24/01/2023 08:49:15 PM 95 Views
Sounds like a thinly veiled “fuck you” to (Abrahamic) religion. - 25/01/2023 12:18:53 AM 107 Views
It’s an M. Night Shyamalan movie - 25/01/2023 05:27:19 PM 111 Views
Really? Nobody else viewed it as simple allegory? - 28/01/2023 05:45:28 AM 103 Views
Yes, I gave Shyamalan too much credit in believing he would not have such a dumb allegory - 01/02/2023 02:20:08 AM 102 Views
Movie reviews for it are out - 02/02/2023 05:43:01 PM 84 Views
Abraham didn't sacrifice Isaac - 01/02/2023 01:49:08 PM 81 Views

Reply to Message