jump to last post 1-14 of 14 discussions (183 posts)

Christians and Muslims complain that "Noah" is historically inaccurate

  1. Stevennix2001 profile image83
    Stevennix2001posted 2 years ago

    According to young turks news and various other sources, many christians and muslims are outright p***ed about the upcoming "Noah" film starring Russell Crowe because they claim it's historically inaccurate to the Biblical story of "Noah" as it's depicted in the Bible allegedly.  I'm not going to comment on this for now because I want to reserve judgment until I see the movie, but I will say a few things.

    First of all, it doesn't matter what historical events you're film is about.  Whether it's about people like Abraham Lincoln, Malcolm X, or even someone from the bible like Noah, the reality is ALL MOVIES TAKE LIBERTIES WITH THE SOURCE MATERIAL.  It's common sense people.  It's common sense.  A filmmaker's job isn't to make a film as historically accurate as humanly possible, nor is it the filmmaker's job to make every freaking film uber realistic.  If we're going by that bulls*** logic, then technically over 99.9 all the films in cinematic history are crap then because most movies aren't realistic.  I'm sorry, but that's just the damn truth.

    Also, anyone who goes in to watch any movie based on actual historical figures like "W", "Iron Lady" and etc with the mindset of..."Der...everything in this movie must be true because they wouldn't make a movie that wasn't accurate....duh..."  is a f***ing idiot.  I'm sorry, but that's just the damn truth.  Anyone who goes into watch any movie with the mindset that they can learn about history by just watching a movie is a moron.  Period. 

    A filmmaker's job isn't meant to educate you on actual historical events, or in this case, biblical stories in the bible.  Their job is to merely take that source material and make a damn good movie out of it.  That's all.  In no way shape or form, should a film ever take the place of anyone reading a book or something to learn about historical events. 

    If anyone wants to learn about the actual biblical story of noah, then they need to read the damn bible, and not take the film to heart because that's just common sense. Just like a person who watches Spielberg's Oscar nominated, "Lincoln."  Sure, it was a great movie, but that film shouldn't take the place of anyone reading a damn book about Lincoln to learn about his life. 

    Look, unless that filmmaker is making a documentary, then their job isn't meant to educate you on historical or biblical events.  Their job is to make a good movie.  That's all.  Anyone who thinks movies NEED to be as historically accurate as humanly possible needs to realize that all historical films aren't accurate.  That's just reality, so why should we criticize "noah" for being inaccurate to the bible in certain areas?  that's just stupid.  I mean let the film come out first, and then judge it.  Sheesh.

    Anyways, I'm done with my rant, so what are you're thoughts on this?

    By the way, here's the link to the video if you guys want to know more about this

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtjWigLWsd4

    1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
      Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Historically inaccurate is not the same as biblically inaccurate. Far as I recall it is a mortal sin and offense to god to change what the bible sez about anything so expect some serious smitings in the movie industry soon. wink

    2. Onusonus profile image88
      Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The overall story line doesn't bother me as much as the idiots who continuously want to shove their environmentalist agenda into the Bible and down our throats. It's about as hair brained as when a liberal tries to claim that Jesus was a socialist.

      1. Paul Wingert profile image80
        Paul Wingertposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        No body knows hardly anything about Jesus, just the BS found in some religious book of fairy tales written 30 years after his death written by someone that never met him!  Noah being historically inaccurate? Historical?! What's historical about it? It's a cute story about a bunch of people getting massacred by a god with security issues. Of course the poorly educated religious people out there can't run fast enough to the theater to fork over their $10 to watch it, thinking it's a documentary! The producers of that movie saw them coming!

        1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
          Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          No one ever got poor milking the Christian minority. big_smile

        2. Onusonus profile image88
          Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          As I was saying. People who have no idea what they are talking about, and some of them have enough money to make a movie. So they are free to stuff whatever crap they feel like into it.

          1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
            Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            What is wrong with that? The bible is full of crap from wealthy people. wink

            1. Onusonus profile image88
              Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Actually the bible is a valuable historical account of God's dealings with his children.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                A "historical account" of imagined activities of a mythological creature from another universe?

                Just how does that work?

                1. Onusonus profile image88
                  Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  "Mythological creature from another universe". What book are you reading. To catch you up, I was talking about God, not aliens.
                  Do you believe in aliens?

              2. Righteous Atheist profile image60
                Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                And if I recall - this is the bit where he murders most of them. lol lol

                Sadly - it contradicts reality to the point where you would have to be a special sort of person to believe that. And of course - a special kind of person to worship such a psychopath. Is that why so many Christians are in prison? Because they adopt biblical morals and are incapable of determining right from wrong? wink

                1. Onusonus profile image88
                  Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Immoral Christians have a lot of catching up to do with organized athiesm in the last 100 years. The reality being, when athiests are in charge people tend to die on a much larger scale.
                  http://markhumphrys.com/Images/200.jpg

                  1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
                    Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Hold on - God killed everyone on the entire planet except one family and that is not as bad as these? I think your grasp of maths is as good as your grasp of reality. Dear me. sad

                    "Organized Atheism" huh? sad

  2. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 2 years ago

    How can you be "historically accurate" about a fictional tale whose details no two people can agree on?

    1. Stevennix2001 profile image83
      Stevennix2001posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The video explains exactly what some of these Christian groups were talking about in the film that's allegedly inaccurate.  I just find it amazing because I always thought people in general had the common sense enough to know that movies aren't supposed to be a 100 percent accurate to the source material that it's adapting it's story from.  Oh well. Crazy people these days.

      1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
        Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Why on earth would you expect common sense from people who believe Noah and the Ark were real?

        1. Stevennix2001 profile image83
          Stevennix2001posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I generally expect everyone to have common sense when it comes to movies.

          1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
            Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Why? I suggest you use your common sense and remember that these people believe the events in the bible actually happened the way it says they did and changing the story is an offense against god. wink

  3. jenniferrpovey profile image94
    jenniferrpoveyposted 2 years ago

    Given my first reaction to the movie was "What the heck? They're doing Noah's Ark AS AN ACTION MOVIE?"

    These people wanted something more accurate than Noah As Filmed By Michael Bay, I guess.

    (Disclaimer: I'm not Christian or Muslim).

    1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
      Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Actually, I think they are just trying to make a lot of money. big_smile

  4. jenniferrpovey profile image94
    jenniferrpoveyposted 2 years ago

    Oh, most likely, my point is that the people complaining seem not to be grasping that this is being sold as an action movie rather than a historical/biblical epic.

    1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
      Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Think of the bible as the action movie of its day. big_smile

  5. 0
    Beth37posted 2 years ago

    lol, Stephen, why so mad?
    I'm with you. I am going to reserve comment until I've seen it, but personally, I can't wait, it looks hossum. smile

  6. 0
    Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago

    I find it comical that anyone would be concerned that someone might turn to Hollywood in search of a biblical/religious/historical education.  Sort of like being pissed that Indiana Jones is a fictional character and that little of the content in those movies is remotely "accurate."  I'm picking up what you're throwing down, Steven. smile

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      What!!??  The Ark of the Covenant isn't in a box in the warehouse?  Tell me it ain't so!

      1. 0
        Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Of course it is; just not the one they show you in the movie. wink

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Whew!  You scared me there; I have a most intricate plan to extricate that artifact from the British warehouse.

          Wait.  Does it have the demons in it?  And full of magic that does bad things but only to bad people or people with their eyes open?

          1. 0
            Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            So much misinformation!  Close your eyes.  Bad people are fine.

            I'm sorry, though.  I can neither confirm not deny that the warehouse is in England.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Oh, I'm sure it is - it was handed over to ("collected by") the British government - you could tell by the accent and pipe.  Don't you know anything, Mo?

              1. 0
                Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                All kinds of stuff that helps me in Jeopardy and Trivial Pursuit.  Not much else of value except that I wouldn't use Noah, Son of God, The Shoes of the Fisherman, or The Greatest Story Ever Told, or The Last Temptation of Christ, or any other Hollywood blockbuster to learn about religion.  But, hey, what do I know? wink

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  LOL  I wouldn't use a blockbuster to learn about anything, let alone religion. 

                  Although "Gravity" was pretty good at depicting zero G.  I think, anyway - I've never been so lucky as to go to space.

  7. aliasis profile image95
    aliasisposted 2 years ago

    I just don't know why one of the most disgusting stories in the Bible would make a good movie. Like, the story is literally, God murders everyone. Children, animals, everyone. Even babies are apparently evil. And then Noah's family like, I don't know, commits a lot of incest to presumably repopulate the planet, and that's nothing to say about the 2 by 2 animals.

    Like, I assumed this wasn't a "religious" movie so much as an "action" movie, but the story still sucks. Who would want to watch it? Honestly don't get it. I guess I'm not a sadist.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Of course babies are evil.  Was it 4 generations to pay for the sins of the father or 5?  And we're still paying for the sins of Eve.

      Besides they spew nasty stuff from both ends. smile

    2. 0
      Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Personally, I felt that way about The Hunger Games-children being sent out to literally slaughter each other to "win" food for their people.  But how many people flocked to that....in book and movie form?  People are interesting when you pay attention to what they view as entertainment.

      1. aliasis profile image95
        aliasisposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Without having a strong opinion about The Hunger Games either way, I think the difference is that in that series, the "games" where children are forced to slaughter each other are viewed as bad. The government that runs these games is literally the antagonistic force. In Noah and the Art story, we're supposed to see God as the good guy, rather than the antagonist. The protagonist in Hunger Games survives horrors and eventually brings those horrors to an end, while managing to overthrow a system and the people who were causing it.

        But I get they are similar in the "why do you want to watch terrible things happen to people". I don't mind drama, but it's nice when the villain what's coming to him at the end. Unless the Noah movie altered the story, I doubt God pays for his crimes at the end.



        "They are stinky" might very well have been God's reasoning for his whole mass super late term abortion genocide. Let's not joke around, this is biblical logic at work.

  8. Stevennix2001 profile image83
    Stevennix2001posted 2 years ago

    I wasn't going to say anything to either of you guys, as this is none of my business anyway.  However, I would like to say that all men are capable of evil acts just as they are capable of good acts as well; whether they're religious or not.  It just ultimately depends on the person, and their upbringing. 

    I don't think it's fair to say Righteous Atheist is like Hitler simply because he agreed with a few quotes from him that Onusonus put up.  That doesn't really prove anything about his character.  I mean I agree with some of the things the Joker said in "The Dark Knight" about how  society is and whatnot, but I've never been prone to blowing up hospitals, or killing innocent people.  Granted, I know the joker is a fictional character, and hitler isn't, but still.  you guys get the idea.  Therefore, I don't it's fair to jump to any conclusions about his character like that.

    As far as the Nazi's go, I can see where you guys are going with this.  Maybe Hitler was lying about his faith to gain support of everyone in Germany.  I mean we have seen many preachers actually lie about their faith in the past, so it's possible.  As far as all the Germans that followed Hitler's orders, I can't really say.  I do know he was man of the year in time magazine, so I think it's safe to say he had a lot of people fooled that he was a good person merely doing what he thought was right for his country; even we all know that isn't the case today, as Hitler was one of history's greatest monsters;

    1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
      Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The only reason it came up is because of onousoneveryoneelse's ridiculous attack on atheists. Clearly - Germany was a Christian dominated country at the time Hitler was in charge. No amount of twisting of the facts is going to change that. Personally - I don't think any Christians actually believe they will be held accountable for their actions after their death and I doubt Adolph was any different.

    2. Onusonus profile image88
      Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      True, Hitler is one of history's greatest monsters. Which is why Unrighteous Atheist is attempting to cherry pick history to attach Hitler to Christianity. Once it is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that every aspect of the man was in deed the opposite of Christian, Hitler goes from being a devout Catholic, to being a Christian, to a Christian who hated churches, or organized religion, (The kind of Christian that every atheist loves). Yet he will never admit the historically documented fact that Hitler actually despised Christianity because Mark is an ideologically driven militant atheist.

      Interestingly over the past century the atheist Communists used the same tactics to suppress any ideological subversion from their world view in order to control the thoughts of their subjects, and all future generations.

      And like Hitler, the Mark of an atheist or an agnostic is such that there are no consequences in heaven or on Earth, there is no code of conduct except the laws of the land, hence moral relativism allows them to be whatever their surroundings allow them to be.

      1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
        Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Interesting - back to attacking atheists as lacking morals. No wonder Adolph Hitler was such a monster. Like all Good Christians he felt no need to follow the rules because he made them up. There is no doubt Hitler was  Christian - as were most of the population of Germany at the time. Still - you can lie and call me anything you want - can't you? As you know there are no consequences after death, and lack the ability to determine morals for yourself. sad

        1. Onusonus profile image88
          Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Ah yes, to the morally ambiguous truth is always an attack, particularly when attempting to subvert all ideology that is inconsistent with your backwards narrative.

          The true Mark of a bully is to play the victim. Are you going to be okay? Need a tissue?

          1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
            Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry - you have no truth. Truth is - Hitler was a Christian. Odd you are so keen to lie about that. Almost like you have no moral code and do not believe there will be retribution after death. Just like Hitler. wink

            1. Onusonus profile image88
              Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              You go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe, doesn't make it true. Odd that you only accept part of the story. I guess the other part is too inconvenient for you. Say to Hitler when you see him. You guys will have a lot to talk about.

              1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
                Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                But it is true. Hitler was indeed a Christian. As were most of his troops.

                http://www.remnantofgod.org/NaziRCC/nazis.jpg

                1. Onusonus profile image88
                  Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Sure, Did you know that Bill Maher is a devout Christian?
                  http://nowscape.com/atheism/images/Maher_LDS_temple.jpg

                  Hey look Richard Dawkins converted too!
                  http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/02/24/article-2105834-11E1D38A000005DC-23_468x286.jpg

                  1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
                    Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Ah - they were pretending to be in church. lol lol

                  2. 0
                    Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I recognize this is tongue in cheek, but consider that neither Bill Maher nor Richard Dawkins has taken, by force, control if half the western world.  Not for lack of trying, I'm sure, but you get my point.  wink

      2. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        "every aspect of the man was in deed the opposite of Christian"?  If there was anything worse than crucifixion in the holocaust I haven't heard of it.  Yet the predecessors of Christianity - the people that would become Christians with time - are the ones that requested the crucifixion of the greatest prophet of all time. 

        Christians, and their god, have shown more than once that there is little to nothing that they will not descend to in their quest for power and converts.  Or just land in some cases.  Or slaves, or whatever they happen to want at the moment, actually.

  9. 0
    Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago

    Have you ever been in the midst of a conversation with folks where suddenly one person stands and starts screaming at the rest?  What he says may be important and really add value to the conversation...he may even be presenting points that are worth serious consideration but his demeanor has become such a disturbance that everyone participating gets up and walks away because they can't continue the conversation beyond this disturbance.

    I think this is the disservice that one does when they attempt to pound home views that are really extreme.

    I think you make some very good points, and have views worth considering.  I think that the presentation lacks any sort of rationality and reason, and that keeps people from recognizing what might be some valuable information.

    And is giving one or two people crap helping to further address your concerns?

    Honesty, I'm not trying to be a pain, just wondering if a reconsideration of your approach might be something that could help to improve communication.

    *Edit: Meant this response for Onusonus.
    :

    1. Onusonus profile image88
      Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Do you believe I am standing up and screaming? Interesting. It would seem that you are attempting to be objective in the conversation when clearly you have chosen to agree with the other side of the argument, (which is fine). However you have only chosen to see the character flaws in me, and give a pass to everyone else in the room.

      1. 0
        Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        A bit, yes.  What's sad is that it takes focus off what you're saying.  You make some good points.  But it's tough to hear any of that when you're busy calling people Hitler, implying that they'll be joining him in hell, and making assumptions about folks based on a 16 word post where they express disagreement with you.  And I'm not defending either RA or wilderness, as they are quite capable of doing so themselves.  But I might (and others might) seriously consider your points if thy weren't so stridently presented.

        1. Onusonus profile image88
          Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Which is because you are refusing to see the character flaws in RA. Let's forget the fact that RA has been continuously mocking me throughout the conversation.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            And because he has mocked you means that when you do the same your comments are well received and understood by others?  That others find your points to be clear, reasonable and well made?

            All Mo has said is that when one becomes childish and returns tit for tat the value of the conversation falls to pieces - an innate truth which should be obvious.

            1. 0
              Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Thank you, wilderness.  That's pretty much what I'm saying.  Of course, because I really only EVER speak the innate truths which should be obvious.

              wink

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                big_smile  Yes, me too.  Only innate truths shall flow from this keyboard.  And would you be interested in some oceanfront property in Arizona?

                1. 0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't know.  Are there hurricanes?  I've heard AZ hurricanes are the worst! wink

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    No.  It is surrounded by a custom designed force field, allowing only gentle, cooling breezes in.  Only $1,000 per square foot, minimum 5 acres.  For you, a special deal of $998.

            2. Onusonus profile image88
              Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              You further illustrate my point. You are holding me to a higher moral standard than RA because he has no moral standards. Which is exactly what makes him more dangerous than any Christian ever could be.
              "Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules" -Saul Alinsky

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                And is that a bad thing - to hold oneself, or their conversation partner, to a higher moral standard than the minimal found out there? 

                I don't find it so - I have always respected those taking the high ground more than those crawling through the mud.  It's one reason I enjoy Mo's comments so much.

                1. Onusonus profile image88
                  Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  You enjoy her comments because you agree with her, not because of some moral standard that you claim she has.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I quite often disagree with MO, and nearly always on religious issues.  I just find her speech, her attitude, the way she expresses herself, to be pleasant and easy to read.  I would not have called that a "moral standard", but as you already have, I'm OK with that.  In this regard her standards are higher than yours.  Or RA's or, sometimes, my own.

          2. 0
            Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Well, I wasn't talking about him.  We were discussing MY issues with your approach.  That said, RA has a tendency to reply to others the way they approach him.  Not a blame game, but somewhere, the battle began and no one seems willing to end it.  And, you may ask him...lol  I'm always willing to acknowledge the flaws in his views - as he is willing to do for me.  I personally find no flaws to acknowledge in his character.

            big_smile

  10. Stevennix2001 profile image83
    Stevennix2001posted 2 years ago

    Looks like young turks made a couple other videos on this topic for anyone wanting to comment

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMdTfK6 … M73A0ZjYjQ

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax3eZkC … M73A0ZjYjQ

  11. ironangel89 profile image61
    ironangel89posted 2 years ago

    I'm a Christian and I'm not really excited to see the film, I will watch it though. My brother-in-law/pastor said that it would have been a good film if not for being a Noah movie; he said it felt more along the lines of Lord of the Rings and that kind of genre. He also said that the director took a LOT of liberties. But, to Christians who see this and get mad, they need to understand that there may still be something inspirational to take from the film just like we do with movies such as Man of Steel or anything else. You really can't expect someone who isn't a Christian, Muslim, or Jew to make something dear to us 100% accurate. Darren Aronofsky is an artistic man and he's simply applying is artistic abilities to a story he saw fit to do so.

    1. cfin profile image76
      cfinposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Why is it anything got to do with your pastor? Is the director and creator of the movie not allowed to interpret the bible or any other book that contains the story of Noah, just as your pastor does every Sunday?

      I have seen pastors across the US butcher the bible every Sunday with their loose and self suiting interpretation of the bible. Lets also keep in mind that Noah was not just in Christian Bible. I'm a christian, and it really makes me mad when extremist Christians go around ranting about how the stories in the bible are not allowed to be interpreted differently or altered by anyone except a christian. It's insane.

      1. ironangel89 profile image61
        ironangel89posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Put aside your self-righteous behavior and get off your high horse. I was merely sharing a story that my pastor, who is also my brother-in-law and close friend thought of the movie. I think he, as a pastor should have weight in judging the films accuracy. Also, you don't know my pastor/brother-in-law/friend and therefore have no right to accuse him of butchering the Bible. Yes, many pastors have done so, I've been to churches where pastors have done that. But I would not be going to my brother-in-law's church if I did not believe he was preaching the Bible accurately. You claim to be a Christian and yet you attack my comment when I was merely sharing how my expectations were accurately lined up with what my brother-in-law thought of the film. Also, you should read comments all the way through before you go on a tangent, I said that Darren Aronofsky is an artist and merely applied his own artistic spin on the story of Noah, it's inconceivable for Christians to believe that a non-Christian would interpret the story accurately as they happened in the Bible. How is that offensive? I didn't say this movie shouldn't be made,it still creates a great opening to witnessing for people who have seen this movie yet do not believe in God. As a Christian, is that not our ultimate goal? to reach out to lost souls? You seem like you want to be an open-minded person and that's a good thing, I strive for the same as well, what I was sharing was merely what my brother-in-law thought of the movie and my own expectations of the movie based on "taste" of films. I shouldn't be having to defend such a comment that wasn't meant for spiteful or offensive purposes.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          "it's inconceivable for Christians to believe that a non-Christian would interpret the story accurately as they happened in the Bible"

          It is offensive as the statement is little but an ego-centric claim that "I'm better than you because I believe the myth".  Christians, as a group, are incapable of realistically "interpreting" the bible: those "interpretations" inevitably come down to changing what it says into something more palatable to the speaker, without regard to the fact that that they are changing the Word of God, written by God, into something it isn't.  The non-believer, on the other hand, recognizes that it isn't true anyway and will leave it alone; no changes necessary.

          1. 0
            Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I don't think it was meant to be offensive.  At the risk of interpreting someone else's words without being asked to do so, I personally read that as that it's impossible to conceive that an interpretation from someone outside of Christianity would ever be expected to place emphasis on the same points that are highlighted in the story for Christians.  Therefore, the point that it was put together as more of a fantastical and entertaining story than one actually meant to convey any spiritual truths-much like LOTR or Star Wars, etc.

            Doesn't seem unreasonable to me to think that one outside of the faith would focus on ideals outside of it to produce entertainment founded on biblical stories.  That was my original point in this thread.  Christians or others of faith make a mistake to look to this film or any other for biblical accuracy or education about Christianity.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Actually, Mo, I agree with you.  The statement wasn't as offensive as the idea that it needed saying; that the believers are better people because of their belief. 

              And no, the move (which I haven't seen) was never intended to be historically OR biblically correct.  It was an "action flick" (from what I hear) and intended to make money.

              1. 0
                Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Not better, just different in terms of how we may see things.  Like...when they made the film Walk the Line about Johnny Cash.  Certain of his children with Vivian Cash thought their mother wasn't portrayed fairly or accurately.  They felt that the movie made her out to be some sort of nagging shrew who didn't support his dreams.  I didn't see her that way at all.  I saw a woman desperate to save her children and her marriage from the damaging effects of her husband's addictions.  But I'm not one of those children, and she wasn't MY mother.  It meant little to me beyond its entertainment value and the life lessons that I, personally, took from it.  That was probably the case for many who didn't see it as anything but a movie.  But I can empathize with the people who loved the people involved.  Here, if you're dealing with people who love God, they might have a more visceral reaction.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  "it's inconceivable for Christians to believe that a non-Christian would interpret the story accurately as they happened in the Bible"

                  That accurately does not have much to do with fair or empathy; it has everything to do with right or wrong, true or false.  Or so I see it; others may well decide that "accurately" means "agrees with my interpretation".

                  1. 0
                    Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I certainly see the point you're making.  And agree that it, in effect, means more of "how I see it" for the individual of faith. 

                    I think that's where the disconnect happens though. 

                    Why, as people of faith, would we even expect that from those not of our same belief structure?  And, shoot, as a Christian, I even interpret that story my own way, and I guarantee that my interpretation is a vastly different one from my very fundamental brothers and sisters.

                    It is what it is...a Hollywood movie.  Don't like it, or feel that it doesn't match up with your beliefs?  Don't go to see it with that expectation.

                    One of my favorite movies of all time is The Shoes of the Fisherman.  About the Catholic Church.  If I thought, from that movie, that's what the Church was really like, I'd be sorely disappointed by what it actually is.  Hollywood folks...not the bastion of truth and realism.

                    smile

                2. janesix profile image60
                  janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I think you mean people who love the Christian version of God.

                  1. 0
                    Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, that's exactly what I mean.  Or the God of the Abrahamic religions at least.  I didn't qualify simply because wilderness and I had that context already established.  But thank you for making it clearer.  smile

        2. cfin profile image76
          cfinposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          1. I never said your brother in law butchered the bible. I stated that many pastors do.
          2. I am not on a "high horse".
          3. My comment was never an attack on you. It was adding to your comment. If anything I feel bad for pastors who stick to the bible as the "others" are the problem and I had agreed with what you said regarding Aranofsky's right to artistic expression. You are clearly defensive, paranoid and disagreed with yourself in an ironic twist.
          4. I never put you in a position to have to defend your comment. You seem to be putting me in a position where I have to defend mine though especially by stating that I "claim" to be christian. Another Irony.
          5. Christians did not write the story of Noah. Jews did. They do not believe in Christ, thus they are not Christians.
          6. IronAngel89, coming from a country and on a larger scale, a continent that has been ripped apart for thousands of years due to religion (all christians), it is not only offensive but shows a huge lack of knowledge on your part to rant at me about "Christianity" or say i am "claiming"" to be christian. I am a Catholic/ Original Christian. There are hundreds of sects that are Christian or claim to be. I don't judge any of them. Maybe you should educate yourself before speaking for all "christians", Muslims, Jews and any one else who has ever heard the story of Noah and "claims" it as their own.

          I am sick to death of people arguing online about a MOVIE made by an artist who read a Jewish story, that was reinterpreted by Christians, which was reinterpreted by Muslims, that has been reinterpreted by sects within all 3 religions over 100 times. By all these sects and religions claim it as their own and state that no one else can reinterpret it while moaning opinionated individuals feel that it's there place to go online and express their opinion of it and FORCE others to share their opinion. (But a man cannot do this in the form of a movie. They can though) Then they tell me I'm on a high horse for telling them not to tell me what to think. Nonsense!

    2. 0
      Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I cannot wait to see it... so excited. smile

      1. BernietheMovieGuy profile image81
        BernietheMovieGuyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Don't waste your money.  It's a lost cause.  The ending bored me to tears.  (And to those who think I disliked it for religious reasons, I'll point out that I'm agnostic with no ties to any organized religion or holy mantra)

  12. BernietheMovieGuy profile image81
    BernietheMovieGuyposted 2 years ago

    That's amusing.  The post that started this end discussion was removed because it "promoted" my review of the movie which, in my opinion, sucked.  To read why I thought so, you can always visit my page and find it for yourselves.

    Guess the rest of my argument fell on deaf ears to the idiots that moderate these pages.  Good thing I promote my links in other ways.  I obviously can't rely on the traffic from here at all since I can't promote my own writing on this site.   As I said before.  Rather defeats the purpose of the whole community.

  13. Michael Murcott profile image62
    Michael Murcottposted 2 years ago

    The film can't be historically inaccurate it is a fictional film about a fictional event no history is involved anywhere.

    1. aka-dj profile image80
      aka-djposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Not believing it happened does not mean that it DI NOT happen.

      After all, there are many today who deny the Holocaust, the landing on the moon, etc.
      Meaningless rhetoric.

  14. Michael Murcott profile image62
    Michael Murcottposted 2 years ago

    lots of evidence for the moon landing and the holocaust

    1. aka-dj profile image80
      aka-djposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      None for the Flood, RIGHT?

      Gotcha!

      1. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        That's right.

 
working