Low cost Christian films rake in major bucks

  • 86 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for The-Apostle
#51 Posted by The-Apostle (12195 posts) -

@Serraph105 said:

@The-Apostle: From a film perspective I could see where a father doing what he can to keep his wife and children safe is more compelling than trying to save adults who should be able to look after themselves. Not mentioning God in biblical story? Yeah that's harder to defend.

Actually though on a side note, much like Job, the story of Noah is one of the more difficult stories to tackle. I mean God condemns everyone in the world (with the exception of Noah's family) to die because they are "all" so very sinful. I get that God is an all-knowing all-powerful being, but that is getting pretty fucking harsh with the world of punishments at his disposal to choose from.

I'm not sure what would make Job a difficult story to do. We've had similar secular stories. Basically a guy loses everything and pretty much hits rock bottom.

In the Biblical story, God allows Satan to test Job's faith, and Satan strips him of everything in his life but Job remains faithful. I wouldn't mind seeing a movie done about Jonah, though I'm not sure how they'd pull it off.

Avatar image for Serraph105
#52 Edited by Serraph105 (31442 posts) -

@The-Apostle:

Yeah let me put the story of Job in slightly different terms. God gets in a pissing match with Satan to prove one guy would be faithful no matter what. All that God needed to do to Job to prove his point was destroy his way of life and kill his family. Also make his very skin hurt. Job still praises God, the end.

There is probably a little more intricacy to it, but that isn't a bad sum up.

Edit: I think I just realized that you meant that this story would not be difficult to bring to film (correct me if I'm wrong), and you would be right. What I meant was that generally this is the story that has just about the least uplifting story you could choose from the bible and potentially could make God the bad guy. It would likely piss religious audiences off that this was the story any film maker would choose to focus on.

Avatar image for chernoalpha527
#53 Posted by chernoalpha527 (169 posts) -

Well of course there are millions of christians in the US and many of them will go see something to reaffirm their beliefs.

Avatar image for MakeMeaSammitch
#54 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (4889 posts) -

Christianity is already stereotyped to have a stupid followers. This isn't helping.

Avatar image for chaoscougar1
#55 Edited by chaoscougar1 (37597 posts) -

Jesus knows how to market himself

Avatar image for branketra
#56 Edited by BranKetra (51726 posts) -

@toast_burner said:

@BranKetra said:

@toast_burner said:

Isn't that pretty much the exact same plot as God's Not Dead, only this one has a man holding a rubber chicken?

Also why would a creationist be studying biology?

As I told you before in another thread, there are individuals who accept the possibility of both. Rather than choosing creationism instead of science or vice-versa, some of us decide to consider the option that the universe is comprised of matter and energy which changes over time in the form of star formation and biospheric evolution among other things while being made by a divine creator.

On-topic: If anything, this is good for the diversity in cinema. Hollywood has a habit of making certain kinds of films and the same is true about Hong Kong and Bollywood.

And you seem to have made up your own definition of creationism. Creationism != Belief in god.

Creationism is the belief that the universe was created as is. i.e no evolution.

I do not mean to be rude. I only do because you apparently have not researched enough history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Avatar image for The-Apostle
#57 Posted by The-Apostle (12195 posts) -

@BranKetra said:

@toast_burner said:

@BranKetra said:

@toast_burner said:

Isn't that pretty much the exact same plot as God's Not Dead, only this one has a man holding a rubber chicken?

Also why would a creationist be studying biology?

As I told you before in another thread, there are individuals who accept the possibility of both. Rather than choosing creationism instead of science or vice-versa, some of us decide to consider the option that the universe is comprised of matter and energy which changes over time in the form of star formation and biospheric evolution among other things while being made by a divine creator.

On-topic: If anything, this is good for the diversity in cinema. Hollywood has a habit of making certain kinds of films and the same is true about Hong Kong and Bollywood.

And you seem to have made up your own definition of creationism. Creationism != Belief in god.

Creationism is the belief that the universe was created as is. i.e no evolution.

I do not mean to be rude. I only do because you apparently have not researched enough history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Can't say I agree with this idea but BranKetra is correct.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#58 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@Serraph105 said:

@The-Apostle:

Yeah let me put the story of Job in slightly different terms. God gets in a pissing match with Satan to prove one guy would be faithful no matter what. All that God needed to do to Job to prove his point was destroy his way of life and kill his family. Also make his very skin hurt. Job still praises God, the end.

There is probably a little more intricacy to it, but that isn't a bad sum up.

I remember reading somewhere that the ending of Job had actually been corrupted through bad translation, and that Job at the end of the story is much more defiant than he is depicted nowadays.

I think a movie about Job could be really interesting, but it'd have to be done right. You wouldn't be able to end it the way it ends in the modern bible - that'd just be bad story telling. It'd have to seriously grapple with the problem of evil to such an extreme length that it'd probably be considered heretical by a lot of religious folks.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
#59 Posted by comp_atkins (34187 posts) -

@Serraph105 said:

@The-Apostle:

Yeah let me put the story of Job in slightly different terms. God gets in a pissing match with Satan to prove one guy would be faithful no matter what. All that God needed to do to Job to prove his point was destroy his way of life and kill his family. Also make his very skin hurt. Job still praises God, the end.

There is probably a little more intricacy to it, but that isn't a bad sum up.

Loading Video...

Avatar image for MakeMeaSammitch
#60 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (4889 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@Serraph105 said:

@The-Apostle:

Yeah let me put the story of Job in slightly different terms. God gets in a pissing match with Satan to prove one guy would be faithful no matter what. All that God needed to do to Job to prove his point was destroy his way of life and kill his family. Also make his very skin hurt. Job still praises God, the end.

There is probably a little more intricacy to it, but that isn't a bad sum up.

I remember reading somewhere that the ending of Job had actually been corrupted through bad translation, and that Job at the end of the story is much more defiant than he is depicted nowadays.

I think a movie about Job could be really interesting, but it'd have to be done right. You wouldn't be able to end it the way it ends in the modern bible - that'd just be bad story telling. It'd have to seriously grapple with the problem of evil to such an extreme length that it'd probably be considered heretical by a lot of religious folks.

Oh dear, critical thinking.

Avatar image for toast_burner
#61 Posted by toast_burner (24619 posts) -

@BranKetra said:

@toast_burner said:

@BranKetra said:

@toast_burner said:

Isn't that pretty much the exact same plot as God's Not Dead, only this one has a man holding a rubber chicken?

Also why would a creationist be studying biology?

As I told you before in another thread, there are individuals who accept the possibility of both. Rather than choosing creationism instead of science or vice-versa, some of us decide to consider the option that the universe is comprised of matter and energy which changes over time in the form of star formation and biospheric evolution among other things while being made by a divine creator.

On-topic: If anything, this is good for the diversity in cinema. Hollywood has a habit of making certain kinds of films and the same is true about Hong Kong and Bollywood.

And you seem to have made up your own definition of creationism. Creationism != Belief in god.

Creationism is the belief that the universe was created as is. i.e no evolution.

I do not mean to be rude. I only do because you apparently have not researched enough history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Which is not creationism.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/creationism

"The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."

Avatar image for The-Apostle
#62 Edited by The-Apostle (12195 posts) -

@toast_burner said:

@BranKetra said:

@toast_burner said:

@BranKetra said:

@toast_burner said:

Isn't that pretty much the exact same plot as God's Not Dead, only this one has a man holding a rubber chicken?

Also why would a creationist be studying biology?

As I told you before in another thread, there are individuals who accept the possibility of both. Rather than choosing creationism instead of science or vice-versa, some of us decide to consider the option that the universe is comprised of matter and energy which changes over time in the form of star formation and biospheric evolution among other things while being made by a divine creator.

On-topic: If anything, this is good for the diversity in cinema. Hollywood has a habit of making certain kinds of films and the same is true about Hong Kong and Bollywood.

And you seem to have made up your own definition of creationism. Creationism != Belief in god.

Creationism is the belief that the universe was created as is. i.e no evolution.

I do not mean to be rude. I only do because you apparently have not researched enough history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Which is not creationism.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/creationism

"The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."

Er... Another term for Theistic evolution is Old Earth CREATIONISM, the belief that God created everything and let nature do its work.

Avatar image for toast_burner
#63 Posted by toast_burner (24619 posts) -

@The-Apostle said:

@toast_burner said:

@BranKetra said:

@toast_burner said:

@BranKetra said:

@toast_burner said:

Isn't that pretty much the exact same plot as God's Not Dead, only this one has a man holding a rubber chicken?

Also why would a creationist be studying biology?

As I told you before in another thread, there are individuals who accept the possibility of both. Rather than choosing creationism instead of science or vice-versa, some of us decide to consider the option that the universe is comprised of matter and energy which changes over time in the form of star formation and biospheric evolution among other things while being made by a divine creator.

On-topic: If anything, this is good for the diversity in cinema. Hollywood has a habit of making certain kinds of films and the same is true about Hong Kong and Bollywood.

And you seem to have made up your own definition of creationism. Creationism != Belief in god.

Creationism is the belief that the universe was created as is. i.e no evolution.

I do not mean to be rude. I only do because you apparently have not researched enough history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Which is not creationism.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/creationism

"The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."

Er... Another term for Theistic evolution is Old Earth CREATIONISM.

I just gave you the dictionary definition of creationism. You can make up your own definition if you want, but don't act offended when people don't use the word the way you want them to.

Avatar image for The-Apostle
#64 Edited by The-Apostle (12195 posts) -
@toast_burner said:

@The-Apostle said:

@toast_burner said:

@BranKetra said:

@toast_burner said:

@BranKetra said:

@toast_burner said:

Isn't that pretty much the exact same plot as God's Not Dead, only this one has a man holding a rubber chicken?

Also why would a creationist be studying biology?

As I told you before in another thread, there are individuals who accept the possibility of both. Rather than choosing creationism instead of science or vice-versa, some of us decide to consider the option that the universe is comprised of matter and energy which changes over time in the form of star formation and biospheric evolution among other things while being made by a divine creator.

On-topic: If anything, this is good for the diversity in cinema. Hollywood has a habit of making certain kinds of films and the same is true about Hong Kong and Bollywood.

And you seem to have made up your own definition of creationism. Creationism != Belief in god.

Creationism is the belief that the universe was created as is. i.e no evolution.

I do not mean to be rude. I only do because you apparently have not researched enough history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Which is not creationism.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/creationism

"The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."

Er... Another term for Theistic evolution is Old Earth CREATIONISM.

I just gave you the dictionary definition of creationism. You can make up your own definition if you want, but don't act offended when people don't use the word the way you want them to.

And I just gave you the correct definition.

EDIT: How did a thread about Christian movies devolve into a debate about the definition of Creationism anyway?

Avatar image for comp_atkins
#65 Posted by comp_atkins (34187 posts) -

@The-Apostle said:
@toast_burner said:

@The-Apostle said:

@toast_burner said:

@BranKetra said:

@toast_burner said:

@BranKetra said:

@toast_burner said:

Isn't that pretty much the exact same plot as God's Not Dead, only this one has a man holding a rubber chicken?

Also why would a creationist be studying biology?

As I told you before in another thread, there are individuals who accept the possibility of both. Rather than choosing creationism instead of science or vice-versa, some of us decide to consider the option that the universe is comprised of matter and energy which changes over time in the form of star formation and biospheric evolution among other things while being made by a divine creator.

On-topic: If anything, this is good for the diversity in cinema. Hollywood has a habit of making certain kinds of films and the same is true about Hong Kong and Bollywood.

And you seem to have made up your own definition of creationism. Creationism != Belief in god.

Creationism is the belief that the universe was created as is. i.e no evolution.

I do not mean to be rude. I only do because you apparently have not researched enough history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Which is not creationism.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/creationism

"The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."

Er... Another term for Theistic evolution is Old Earth CREATIONISM.

I just gave you the dictionary definition of creationism. You can make up your own definition if you want, but don't act offended when people don't use the word the way you want them to.

And I just gave you the correct definition.

EDIT: How did a thread about Christian movies devolve into a debate about the definition of Creationism anyway?

they all wander that way eventually.

Avatar image for branketra
#66 Edited by BranKetra (51726 posts) -

@toast_burner: I do mean to disregard the importance of Oxford. You are correct that theistic evolution is not creationism by that definition. However, that does make it any less valid or relevant. What this simply means is that it is time for an update on definitions.

Avatar image for toast_burner
#67 Posted by toast_burner (24619 posts) -

@BranKetra said:

@toast_burner: /i do mean to disregard the importance of Oxford. You are correct that theistic evolution is not creationism by that definition. However, that does make it any less valid or relevant. What this simply means is that it is time for an update on definitions.

If you want to use a different definition than fair enough. But it should be obvious that when someone says creationism they are usually referring to that definition. And given the context of the thread it should have been extra obvious.

Avatar image for branketra
#68 Edited by BranKetra (51726 posts) -
@toast_burner said:

@BranKetra said:

@toast_burner: /i do mean to disregard the importance of Oxford. You are correct that theistic evolution is not creationism by that definition. However, that does make it any less valid or relevant. What this simply means is that it is time for an update on definitions.

If you want to use a different definition than fair enough. But it should be obvious that when someone says creationism they are usually referring to that definition. And given the context of the thread it should have been extra obvious.

Sure, if someone only considers the Oxford definition valid despite the existence of contrary beliefs which have been considered for hundreds of years. >_>

Avatar image for toast_burner
#69 Posted by toast_burner (24619 posts) -

@BranKetra said:
@toast_burner said:

@BranKetra said:

@toast_burner: /i do mean to disregard the importance of Oxford. You are correct that theistic evolution is not creationism by that definition. However, that does make it any less valid or relevant. What this simply means is that it is time for an update on definitions.

If you want to use a different definition than fair enough. But it should be obvious that when someone says creationism they are usually referring to that definition. And given the context of the thread it should have been extra obvious.

Sure, if someone only considers the Oxford definition valid despite the existence of contrary beliefs which have been considered for hundreds of years. >_>

Saying that there are people out there who believe in god and evolution means absolutely nothing. Nobody was saying anything different. You were just incorrectly using the term creationism and still when shown to be wrong you refuse to accept that you made a mistake.

The fact is the vast majority of people use the word creationism to mean divine creation as depicted in the bible without evolution. So when discussing a person who is offended by the idea of evolution, why would you assume that the word creationism is being used to mean anything else? What possible reason do you have to think that I was using your obscure definition of the word?

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#70 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (9238 posts) -

@BranKetra said:

@toast_burner: I do mean to disregard the importance of Oxford. You are correct that theistic evolution is not creationism by that definition. However, that does make it any less valid or relevant. What this simply means is that it is time for an update on definitions.

How is it valid if its totally unscientific? The idea of theistic evolution is utterly non-falsifiable. There's absolutely nothing valid about it seeing at its merely a trick by religious folks to reconcile their beliefs with reality.

Avatar image for branketra
#71 Edited by BranKetra (51726 posts) -
@toast_burner said:

Saying that there are people out there who believe in god and evolution means absolutely nothing. Nobody was saying anything different. You were just incorrectly using the term creationism and still when shown to be wrong you refuse to accept that you made a mistake.

The fact is the vast majority of people use the word creationism to mean divine creation as depicted in the bible without evolution. So when discussing a person who is offended by the idea of evolution, why would you assume that the word creationism is being used to mean anything else? What possible reason do you have to think that I was using your obscure definition of the word?

It actually does mean something. "Theistic evolution" is it. Oxford does not have a definition for it and that I am of the opinion that such a state should be altered. I suppose the status of theistic evolution is similar to that of slang words in that they are not going to in line with the main definition.

The reason why I initially reminded you about our previous discussion was to let you know that their is at least one of us who believes in something related even if there is no formal definition for it. New ideas come with the progress of civilizations and I see this to be no different. Also, I expect those who discuss topic to be knowledgeable of a variety of ideas related to their particular subject of interest and if not at least be inquisitive, though it would be unfair to reprimand or chide you for lacking the information which I brought into this discussion. As I am sure you are aware, you are free to learn whatever you choose.

@HoolaHoopMan said:

How is it valid if its totally unscientific? The idea of theistic evolution is utterly non-falsifiable. There's absolutely nothing valid about it seeing at its merely a trick by religious folks to reconcile their beliefs with reality.

That idea may be currently non-falsifiable, but I believe that someday there will be a legitimate way that it can be. I am not attempting to deceive or outwit anyone with this idea that I accept the possibility of. I thought of it myself and then one day I found that others had been thinking about it centuries before I was born.

Avatar image for toast_burner
#72 Posted by toast_burner (24619 posts) -

@BranKetra said:
@toast_burner said:

Saying that there are people out there who believe in god and evolution means absolutely nothing. Nobody was saying anything different. You were just incorrectly using the term creationism and still when shown to be wrong you refuse to accept that you made a mistake.

The fact is the vast majority of people use the word creationism to mean divine creation as depicted in the bible without evolution. So when discussing a person who is offended by the idea of evolution, why would you assume that the word creationism is being used to mean anything else? What possible reason do you have to think that I was using your obscure definition of the word?

It actually does mean something. "Theistic evolution" is it. Oxford does not have a definition for it and that I am of the opinion that such a state should be altered. I suppose the status of theistic evolution is similar to that of slang words in that they are not going to in line with the main definition.

The reason why I initially reminded you about our previous discussion was to let you know that their is at least one of us who believes in something related even if there is no formal definition for it. New ideas come with the progress of civilizations and I see this to be no different. Also, I expect those who discuss topic to be knowledgeable of a variety of ideas related to their particular subject of interest and if not at least be inquisitive, though it would be unfair to reprimand or chide you for lacking the information which I brought into this discussion. As I am sure you are aware, you are free to learn whatever you choose.

@HoolaHoopMan said:

How is it valid if its totally unscientific? The idea of theistic evolution is utterly non-falsifiable. There's absolutely nothing valid about it seeing at its merely a trick by religious folks to reconcile their beliefs with reality.

That idea may be currently non-falsifiable, but I believe that someday there will be a legitimate way that it can be. I am not attempting to deceive or outwit anyone with this idea that I accept the possibility of. I thought of it myself and then one day I found that others had been thinking about it centuries before I was born.

What previous conversation? I'm pretty sure the previous conversation was the same as this one. I say something about creationism, you don't know what creationism is and assume I was talking about all Christians.

It's ironic for you to say you expect people to be knowledgeable when you're the one who doesn't know what creationism is. Also it's not just the Oxford dictionary that defines creationism like that, it's all of the major English language dictionaries. And of course it doesn't have theistic evolution, thats not a word, it's two words.

Avatar image for branketra
#73 Edited by BranKetra (51726 posts) -

@toast_burner: The previous conversation I mentioned was in another thread days ago. Both then and now, my knowledge of creationism should be described as sufficient. I brought another kind of creationism into this discussion. That does not mean it is wrong. Then again, if it somehow does, maybe it needs to be renamed. Do you have any suggestions?

As far as definitions, fair enough. It is a term, though, and calling it a delusion with no basis in reality or simply ignoring it in spite of its existence and that of those who came before would be unjust. That has been my purpose in mentioning this. Perhaps you did not do that, yet now you know, anyway. :)

Avatar image for toast_burner
#74 Posted by toast_burner (24619 posts) -

@BranKetra said:

@toast_burner: The previous conversation I mentioned was in another thread days ago. Both then and now, my knowledge of creationism should be described as sufficient. I brought another kind of creationism into this discussion. That does not mean it is wrong. Then again, if it somehow does, maybe it needs to be renamed. Do you have any suggestions?

As far as definitions, fair enough. It is a term, though, and calling it a delusion with no basis in reality or simply ignoring it in spite of its existence and that of those who came before would be unjust. That has been my purpose in mentioning this. Perhaps you did not do that, yet now you know, anyway. :)

I didn't mention theistic evolution because It has absolutely no connection at all with anything in this thread. Not mentioning something doesn't mean they must not know about it. Nobody in this thread has mentioned algebra so far does that mean nobody here understands it? No it just means it's completely off topic.

There are lots of religious people in the world. Why is it so hard for you to accept that people can discus a religious believe without talking about your believes? It was very clear that I was talking about creationism, not theistic evolution, because I said creationism. If I said "why would a religious person go to uni to study biology" then you would have a point. But I clearly didn't say that. You just can't accept that not everything revolves around you. I never mentioned your believes but you're going to pretend I did anyway.

Avatar image for wis3boi
#75 Edited by wis3boi (32507 posts) -

@HoolaHoopMan said:

@BranKetra said:

@toast_burner: I do mean to disregard the importance of Oxford. You are correct that theistic evolution is not creationism by that definition. However, that does make it any less valid or relevant. What this simply means is that it is time for an update on definitions.

How is it valid if its totally unscientific? The idea of theistic evolution is utterly non-falsifiable. There's absolutely nothing valid about it seeing at its merely a trick by religious folks to reconcile their beliefs with reality.

it's called trying to have your cake and eat it too, as well as cognitive dissonance

Avatar image for branketra
#76 Edited by BranKetra (51726 posts) -

@toast_burner said:

@BranKetra said:

@toast_burner: The previous conversation I mentioned was in another thread days ago. Both then and now, my knowledge of creationism should be described as sufficient. I brought another kind of creationism into this discussion. That does not mean it is wrong. Then again, if it somehow does, maybe it needs to be renamed. Do you have any suggestions?

As far as definitions, fair enough. It is a term, though, and calling it a delusion with no basis in reality or simply ignoring it in spite of its existence and that of those who came before would be unjust. That has been my purpose in mentioning this. Perhaps you did not do that, yet now you know, anyway. :)

I didn't mention theistic evolution because It has absolutely no connection at all with anything in this thread. Not mentioning something doesn't mean they must not know about it. Nobody in this thread has mentioned algebra so far does that mean nobody here understands it? No it just means it's completely off topic.

There are lots of religious people in the world. Why is it so hard for you to accept that people can discus a religious believe without talking about your believes? It was very clear that I was talking about creationism, not theistic evolution, because I said creationism. If I said "why would a religious person go to uni to study biology" then you would have a point. But I clearly didn't say that. You just can't accept that not everything revolves around you. I never mentioned your believes but you're going to pretend I did anyway.

Far be it from me to be egomaniacal.

I prefer to consider my perspective to be inclusive and I believe the benefits of practicing such a mentality are greater than the drawbacks. I do not understand why you say so many negative things about me. Frankly, I find it rather disturbing.

Avatar image for perfect_blue
#77 Posted by Perfect_Blue (29631 posts) -

BranKetra, I think you have no idea what you are talking about.

Avatar image for branketra
#78 Posted by BranKetra (51726 posts) -

Aljosa23, prove it.

Avatar image for toast_burner
#79 Edited by toast_burner (24619 posts) -

@BranKetra said:

@toast_burner said:

@BranKetra said:

@toast_burner: The previous conversation I mentioned was in another thread days ago. Both then and now, my knowledge of creationism should be described as sufficient. I brought another kind of creationism into this discussion. That does not mean it is wrong. Then again, if it somehow does, maybe it needs to be renamed. Do you have any suggestions?

As far as definitions, fair enough. It is a term, though, and calling it a delusion with no basis in reality or simply ignoring it in spite of its existence and that of those who came before would be unjust. That has been my purpose in mentioning this. Perhaps you did not do that, yet now you know, anyway. :)

I didn't mention theistic evolution because It has absolutely no connection at all with anything in this thread. Not mentioning something doesn't mean they must not know about it. Nobody in this thread has mentioned algebra so far does that mean nobody here understands it? No it just means it's completely off topic.

There are lots of religious people in the world. Why is it so hard for you to accept that people can discus a religious believe without talking about your believes? It was very clear that I was talking about creationism, not theistic evolution, because I said creationism. If I said "why would a religious person go to uni to study biology" then you would have a point. But I clearly didn't say that. You just can't accept that not everything revolves around you. I never mentioned your believes but you're going to pretend I did anyway.

Far be it from me to be egomaniacal.

I prefer to consider my perspective to be inclusive and I believe the benefits of practicing such a mentality are greater than the drawbacks. I do not understand why you say so many negative things about me. Frankly, I find it rather disturbing.

So you want to be included in everything regardless of whether it actually involves you or not? That seems rather egoistic to me.

Avatar image for branketra
#80 Edited by BranKetra (51726 posts) -

@toast_burner: When someone clarifies their message repeatedly and others nevertheless continue to percieve a totally different one, something is apparently wrong.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#81 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (9238 posts) -

@BranKetra said:

@HoolaHoopMan said:

How is it valid if its totally unscientific? The idea of theistic evolution is utterly non-falsifiable. There's absolutely nothing valid about it seeing at its merely a trick by religious folks to reconcile their beliefs with reality.

That idea may be currently non-falsifiable, but I believe that someday there will be a legitimate way that it can be. I am not attempting to deceive or outwit anyone with this idea that I accept the possibility of. I thought of it myself and then one day I found that others had been thinking about it centuries before I was born.

Ahhh someday. They've been saying that about Intelligent Design for decades. The reality however is far different. They've been losing ground drastically and their last bastion of hope, irreducible complexity, has been utterly destroyed.

Your ship is sinking. I'd evacuate if I were you. Theistic evolution is scientifically bankrupt, just not as much as flat out creationism.

Avatar image for branketra
#82 Posted by BranKetra (51726 posts) -

@HoolaHoopMan said:

@BranKetra said:

@HoolaHoopMan said:

How is it valid if its totally unscientific? The idea of theistic evolution is utterly non-falsifiable. There's absolutely nothing valid about it seeing at its merely a trick by religious folks to reconcile their beliefs with reality.

That idea may be currently non-falsifiable, but I believe that someday there will be a legitimate way that it can be. I am not attempting to deceive or outwit anyone with this idea that I accept the possibility of. I thought of it myself and then one day I found that others had been thinking about it centuries before I was born.

Ahhh someday. They've been saying that about Intelligent Design for decades. The reality however is far different. They've been losing ground drastically and their last bastion of hope, irreducible complexity, has been utterly destroyed.

Your ship is sinking. I'd evacuate if I were you. Theistic evolution is scientifically bankrupt, just not as much as flat out creationism.

Why is that?

Inb4 because the idea of a creator has been disproven.

Avatar image for Riverwolf007
#83 Edited by Riverwolf007 (26023 posts) -

the vast majority of the time christian films = money grabs made by amoral filmmakers that use the audiences wish to look pious by seeing a christian film to make an easy buck.

plus you can make the crappiest garbage imaginable and no one will ever say a thing because religious people shit themselves and make a big stink about persecution if anyone criticizes those kinds of films.

even worse is when you point out it is made by corrupt people taking advantage of religious people it only helps the film.

Avatar image for Serraph105
#84 Posted by Serraph105 (31442 posts) -

@Riverwolf007: Excellent point. Hey Riverwolf you want to make some easy cash?

Avatar image for Wilfred_Owen
#85 Posted by Wilfred_Owen (20964 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:

Made me think of this:

lolz. Great episode.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#86 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (9238 posts) -

@BranKetra said:

Why is that?

Inb4 because the idea of a creator has been disproven.

Because the existence of extant life on Earth is more than easily explained by evolution, quite elegantly. Theistic evolution is just a convoluted mess which raises 20 questions for everyone it tries to answer. Its unneeded, and like I said before, is a poor attempt by religious folk to reconcile their beliefs with reality.

Avatar image for branketra
#87 Posted by BranKetra (51726 posts) -

@HoolaHoopMan said:

@BranKetra said:

Why is that?

Inb4 because the idea of a creator has been disproven.

Because the existence of extant life on Earth is more than easily explained by evolution, quite elegantly. Theistic evolution is just a convoluted mess which raises 20 questions for everyone it tries to answer. Its unneeded, and like I said before, is a poor attempt by religious folk to reconcile their beliefs with reality.

I have my own ideas about it. Perhaps theistic evolution is not the correct idea to group mine with.