Is this movie the perfect example of style over substance?

No. This movie actually contradicts Catholic theology quite heavily. He shouldn't have apostatized. The movie focused heavily on the idea of idolatry, and that the image was not Christ, but Garfield's action was clearly a denouncement of Christ. By doing so, he spat on all those who had already died and who were suffering right before him. He did not cause their suffering; only the inquisitor did. As Christians we are commanded not to apostosize under any circumstance. The blood of martyrs is part of the foundation of our faith. This movie criticizes it, and suggests that the faith itself can be denied in order to ameliorate earthly suffering. If this were true, the faith could not stand.

Scorcese might have thought that was the word of God, but from the perspective of faith, it can only be understood as the devil. Those people were not dying for Garfield, they were dying for Christ. Did not Christ himself know that many people would suffer in his name? Scorcese abandoned the faith many years ago, but late in life is now question whether he made the right choice. He wants to say that he was still Catholic all along, but he has not practiced and he has even caused harm to the faith of others. His argument is poor.

Just because he apostatises doesn’t mean it was portrayed as something positive. He’s screaming and crying as he does it and basically just throws himself onto the ground in anguish and the inquisitor gives him a smug dressing down afterwards.

>they were dying for Christ
No they weren't. Are you dense? Did you speedwatch it and miss the whole thing about Japan being a swamp?

We do not simply wait until we die. I doubt there is a single one of us who would not want a longer life here on earth. Even Jesus asked that there might be some other way, that he might die some other day. But how could we claim to have the truth if we were not willing to be killed for it?

T. pleb

It was literally and unironically a perfect 10/10 movie

Attached: Silence.jpg (1280x720, 139K)

A point made in the film is that the Japanese converts are practicing Christianity incorrectly to some extent and are hero-worshipping the missionaries instead of giving their due to Jesus.

>plot
Holy shit when will this meme end. People are so hung on plot. Plot, plot, plot everywhere. Plot is not the most important thing in the film. Get that through your head. Plot is not important.

basado

The movie strongly suggests that the voice was God, and that he secretly remained Christian. Yes, it can be understood through the proper theological perspective, but while the movie does resist a strong conclusion in any respect, it most resists the idea that it is pure tragedy and defeat.

this
they dont care about jesus or maria
they care about getting salvation

>We do not simply wait until we die
thanks christard, but I didn’t say that

The whole point was to throw simple catholic dogma under the bus to preserve the well being of the people the priests were responsible for. By denouncing jesus, he became the Shepard the people needed.

This. Character study > plot

According to the inquisition, and a man convinced by the inquisition. This is perhaps one of the most frustrating aspects of the movie. Jesuits would have been the most accepting of the people's desires for physical expressions of faith, and for understanding that priests are people to be emulated and respected (obvious exceptions applied). The mere fact that they were willing to go through so much pain without apostatizing demonstrates that no matter how incomplete their understanding, it was motivated by more than a hero worship of the priests. Again, the movie makes many points and statements which are extremely contrary to Catholic theology and understanding, especially things which would have been known to these priests. Certainly, it was an incredible torment, and I cannot possibly do anything but grieve for the actual people who experienced them, nor do I have any ground personally to criticize the real people for what they may or may not have done, nor could I understand how such trials might affect one's mind and belief. The movie however does not seem to be content with mere reflection on pain and suffering, instead allowing certain ideas and opinions to stand without significant opposition. It should not be watched with any sense that the arguments put forward are valid.

>glorify God and wait til you die
You pretty much did

>by denouncing Jesus, he became the shepherd they needed
This cannot be. It is a contradiction. If this is true, than the entire faith is false, and should never be repeated by anyone.

Of course the ideas are valid you high-tower academic fuckwit. You sound like someone who hasn't been responsible for doing laundry, let alone being the spiritual leader for a group of oppressed peoples. Fuck outta here.

>they care about getting salvation
Yes, that is the point. Jesus died so that we might be saved. The desire is to be saved. You are saved by glorigying God. What greater testimony is there than to stand by God, to suffer with Jesus, and not denounce him under extreme torture? If someone would hate you that much simply for Jesus name, then it is worth suffering.

These are not my ideas. These are the ideas put forward by those who did die, under great torment. This isn't a fiction. We didn't theorize it. Christ commanded this practice, ancient Christians followed that practice, and it is martydrom that has historically had the most profound proselytizing effect. The idea that one can do the will of God by denying God is absurd. How can one serve the Truth by lying? This is a fundamental position of Christianity.

You can sit and deny the fact that we live in a material world with material concerns all day and all night, that doesn't put food in the mouth of a man who's starving to death.

see

So many dogmatic buttblasted Catholics in this thread, Jesus. The movie was great, and while its arguments may not be completely in line with the Church, the points it raises are valid, and worth consideration. The movie’s “conclusion” on the matters is also ambiguous, and I don’t think that one can blame the film for its moral ambiguity. I feel like a lot of the people that are offended by this film are the same who view The Last Temptation as blasphemy. I went to see the movie with my dad, who is a die hard fundamentalist, and he was fucking furious by the end of the movie. I really loved the movie, but to each their own

Not all circumstances wisely permit truth.

apostatize.

Let's take the example given in the movie. One man preaches the word of God, and causes other people to believe in God. Another man dislikes this, because he thinks this teaching is wrong and it is changing the culture of the land. So, this second man imprisons one of the followers and hangs him upside down so that he will die. This second man, the inquisitor, tells the preacher that unless he denounces the faith, the captured man will die. At this point, it is only the inquisitor who is responsible for the suffering and death of the captured man. If the captured man dies, it is only the inquisitor who has killed him. He is the one who had control; he initiated it; and he had all the power to stop it from happening. If the preacher denounces the faith, then why did he ever share it? The inquisitor has certainly done something evil. But if the preacher was lying, than he also bears responsibility for this suffering, and for changing the culture by a lie. In this sense, the evil of the inquisitor is in punishing the wrong man, for it is the preacher who has done the greater evil and should be punished. If however the faith is true, than he cannot renounce it. If it is true, then this man being killed will have the greatest reward in heaven, and the inquisitor will face justice in hell; if it is true, then the preacher has done a good thing by sharing it, and by proving his conviction to the people; if it is true, it would be a great evil to denounce it and to cause people not to believe. If it is true, than the suffering of the captured man will be redeemed; if it is false, the suffering was for nothing; if its true, but renounced, than the suffering would have been redeemed, but instead the preacher will teach the captured man that it was for nothing. Why do you struggle to see that it is the inquisitor and the inquisitor only who is responsible for the death and suffering? Why do you accept the passing of guilt from an evil man to an innocent man?

>the plot itself isn't that interesting
You belong in a garbage disposal.

No, it is just the one. Just me. You can blame the movie for its moral ambiguity, because it was a choice. Scorcese grew up in the Church, and could have talked to someone rather than share his question in such a way as to cause even more people to doubt. It was not a noble thing unless you are against the faith. The Last Temptation was less blasphemous than this. While the particular images it uses to express the temptation of Christ are shocking and against the faith, it at least presents an idea which can be contemplated in a productive manner. Further, it is not to each their own. If Christianity is wrong, than it is a great evil in the world and should be fought against strongly. If it is true, than it is of primary importance to every single person alive.

One can easily argue that because the faith given to the Japs by the priests wasnt truly in line with what is considered “the true faith” (whether or not it was the priests’ intention) that the fault lays on the priest

A love of truth will permit nothing but truth.

I don’t think that Scorsese had any malicious intent in sharing his “question”, and I don’t think there’s anything in the Bible that can be said to condone the bringing up of questions.
>inb4 that verse about “making the children stumble”

Because the whole point of the movie was that the priests were not in school anymore. They got hit by a bus called reality that took all their simple, academically tested and trained moral precepts and beat them to death with tides while bound on crosses. The amount of privilege the priests had as compared to their flock was staggering.

It's real noble of you to put the lives of not just yourself, but the people around you at serious risk. I'll remind you that jesus died alone on his cross, not nailed there along with his disciples.

No, you can't. First, you don't understand to the faith to even argue what is or isn't the true faith. The movie gets it quite wrong. Much of what the Japanese people did was quite understandable. Even if they sinned, the movie portrayed them as better Christians than most Europeans of that same age. They had the opportunity, knowing the consequences, to renounce their faith and did not. That is martyrdom, and the state of their formation hardly matters in comparison to that.

It is fine to question. Scorcese was not wrong to struggle with these ideas. That is not what I'm saying. A film is not simply a question. It is a very, very public question. Further, although he does not provide a clear and definitive answer, it certainly suggests an understanding. And what it suggests, even the way it asks the question have caused many people to come to wrong conclusions. Even if they do not believe, many people have come to a wrong understanding of what Catholic faith even teaches. I am not suggesting that Scorcese meant this harm; what I said was that, given the result, it can only be praised if you think it is good to cause confusion and doubt about Catholicism.

And yet all but one of them were tortured and killed for their faith. There are more martyrs than known saints. Jesus knew this would be true. He told them, and us that it would be true. And he told us explicitly to suffer for him, to never lie about our faith, even under the threat of pain and death. Remember, everyone dies. If people do not have the truth, what will they die for? And again, how, in any working moral system, could you blame the one who shares truth for the suffering caused by one who punishes it? Why do you question us, but not the inquisitor?

There's a shit ton of substance,why did you post this bait?

Certainly, as the movie portrays it, the priests were naive. But why do you confuse the person with the ideas? Peter was not naive. Nor Paul. You criticize what is sacred to us, and what we know is an anchor for our faith. I would not be Christian today except by the blood of martyrs many hundreds of years ago. This is not a movie.

What do you really need to know besides sometimes, God snatches the faith right off your tongue.

Wish Driver and Garfield switched roles.

I don’t think Garfield could have pulled off Driver’s role.

Martyrs whose struggle you dont understand. For the priest to publically display his contempt for jesus was martyrdom. Neither the elder or the younger priest lived contented lives after their renunciation. They ate a dick to get themselves out of a hopeless situation. Sometimes, you have to be the miracle that God needs.

It was pride, fucking with him.

That's not the point.

You are wrong. This has never been taught, and was directly contradicted by Christ. You say he was too proud in allowing his followers to suffer, and yet you suggest that he should, in order to be like Christ, should follow his own rule. The fact that I don't understand and, hopefully, will never understand the experience of a martyr is precisely why this movie is dangerous. If it is right to alleviate that suffering by denying the faith, at what point is it okay to expect people to suffer for the faith? Should we lie about our faith so that no one feels any earthly pain? Should we contradict every believe, just to alleviate earthly suffering? Any faith which can lie about itself is a false faith. A faith which allows such a fundamental deception is itself a faith in deception.

If he did that, he would not be God.

God does whatever he wants, fool, and he is not beholden to you or anyone. I'm done arguing with catholics.

Could have been 10 mins long and it would've been much better for it. Those last few lines and some of the camera work was all that was needed.
t. JW

>God does what I say, and not what you say
>Why do you think God has any limits?
How, exactly, do you understand God? When you say God, what does it mean to you?

Fate, or if you're secularly inclined, chance. If I'm playing poker, God is something I factor in.

This is what happens when you take things too literally.
What you believe is what you do, how you act, how you live. What you say matters much less than what you do. I can say I believe in Christ, but it doesn't mean a damn thing if I don't live my life in such a way that Christ would be proud of.
Nobody can force you to believe or disbelieve anything. If you can save innocent lives by lying, you're a fucking retard if you don't do it, and I'd argue a legitimately bad person.

If you can save innocent lives, and you choose not to in order to save your own soul, that's extremely selfish and straight up evil.

Words are actions. And if someone would kill someone over your words, the guilt lies entirely on them. How is that you cannot understand this? If someone would kill your mother because of something you said, they are the evil one. Further, if that person has said the same thing, willingly said that thing and refused to denounce it, then you are wrong to lie to save them. Christ literally says that it is good to be willing to be killed for him. He literally says it is wrong to deny the faith, even in fear of death. He explicitly says he would be dissapointed if you denied him, even if it was not avoid suffering; after all he suffered and died specifically so that you might know him and call upon him in your suffering. Sure, he would understand, and he would forgive probably forgive you; after all, Peter denied Christ three times as Christ was being tortured. But this is the greatest mistake of the movie; Garfield renounces Christ in order to live a non-Christian life, and prevent the Japanese people from hearing the word of God. In every respect, except his internal thoughts, he is not Christian. I cannot say what God would do with such a man, but neither can I condone that behavior. Certainly I can say that it would have been better had he done otherwise. But again, how--how can you see the suffering the inquisitor caused and blame anyone but the inquisitor, even if the Garfield refused to trample. If you cannot understand the evil of the inquisitor, and his sole responsibility, then you are an accomplice to evil.

Nah, Garfield is believable as a naive missionary. Driver has a look of maturity to him that would contradict some of Rodrigues' actions

It was not for the priest's soul. It was for their soul, the soul of all the Japanese, and the glory of God. By trampling and preventing Christian images would enter the island, he guaranteed no Japanese person would know Christ for generations. And I am utterly shocked how many times I must say this--if someone takes a hostage and kills them because you don't negotiate, the evil is entirely on them. This is such a fundamental and black and white moral question. It can hardly be more clear than this. If you find this dilemma to be legitimately cloudy, then you have been greatly deceived. How can none of you understand this?

What do you mean by fate? Why do you call it God?

Moral relativism is not "deception." We live the lives we are handed by God. Black and White thinking is basic bitch bullshit.

Because "God" translates to the people I like to talk to about religion. The all-powerful force that we cannot subdue that calls to us from somewhere beyond perception. It's not a person. It's not a myth. But it is a real force in every single persons life.

You are ridiculously delusional.
>if someone would kill someone over your words, the guilt lies entirely on them.
If someone tells you that they are going to kill innocent people if you don't say something, and you choose not to say something knowing what the result will be, you are as responsible for their deaths as the person physically killing them.
If you have the opportunity to take action to save an innocent life, and you choose instead to stand by and watch them die, you don't think you're morally responsible for that choice? According to you, words are actions, so it's an equivalent scenario.
Martyrdom is a choice one makes for oneself, but you cannot make that choice for another. Self-sacrifice is literally the most Christ-like thing you can possibly do, and yet you'd rather do the exact opposite and sacrifice innocent lives to serve yourself.
You dangerously misunderstand the doctrines of your faith.

>How can none of you understand this?
If everybody is telling you that you're wrong about something, you might want to think about taking it seriously.

>moral relativism isn't the easy way out
>We are handed our lives by God, so I don't have to change and if I do evil, it's not my fault
To say that some cases are clear cut is not to say all are. But without a doubt, the person who, in right and clear mind, who threatens to kill someone and then follows through, regardless of what is asked, is in the wrong. Even allowing a great amount of relativism, this must be accepted. It can never be morally right to use someones death at your hands as leverage. To allow this is to say there is no morality, in which case, why did you even bother watching the movie?

Because Rodrigues acts out of empathy and mercy. In the catholic dogma, the actions of Rodrigues are totally in the wrong, but for a gentile the actions made perfect sense. Because they didn't grasp the idea of the eternal salvation. Is a idea that Ferreira puts on the table: for the nips all the world is based in a natural system that can't be reconciliate with the christian one. In the book and the 70's movie it mades more sense.

No you are not. They are the only ones responsible. How could it be any other way? They put forward the demand. They have control over the people. They are the ones who carry out the action. They are using your own sense of care and concern for the other people to force you to do something you would never otherwise do. That is 100% evil, and it is 100% theirs. There is no way to transfer that evil, unless you accept it as legitimate. This is not a trolly problem. The other person is just as human as you, and me, and those they threaten. It's not some uncontrollable force. I'm not choosing their martyrdom. I'm not choosing. The only meaningful choice lies with the person who is threatening them and plans to kill them. It is their choice to kill, and theirs alone. That kind of choice cannot be transferred by any means.

So you take a different meaning than them, and use it to argue with them about their understanding of the word?

>this thread represents the consensus of the world
>If everybody's doing it, it must be right
No wonder your moral compass is skewed.

He does not act out of either empathy or mercy. His actions make sense, not just to non-believers, but to all, because everyone is selfish in the same way. We all would struggle in exactly the same thing. It is easy for me to explain it here, but I have no expectation that it would be easy for me to live it out. As I said before, I am not criticizing the actual priests who lived and endured these things, but rather the way it is presented by Scorsese. It is more than understandable why someone would would to trample and deny God. It is hard enough to watch even when you know it is film. But the difficulty of it does not change its moral character. And perhaps most importantly, one need not understand Christ and salvation in order to receive that salvation. There are many throughout the gospels who do not understand, but believe. Jesus even says that through the Holy Spirit, the intent of our heart will be made manifest to God, even if we do not have the words or thoughts, so long as our spirit is in Christ. Further, as much as Ferreira says theirs is a natural system, their understanding of nature was inherently a spiritual one, and not a material one like in the West. Ferreira misunderstands their faith, and because of it loses his own. As a last point, from a dogmatic point, we say Rodrigues is wrong, but it is what he does after that is condemnable, and is really the worst part of the movie. Peter denied God. In this movie, the one japanese man is the first to deny, and even informs on his neighbors, denying over and over again; each time however, he returns. This would be more acceptable than Rodrigues, who after denying, continues to deny and prevents the faith from growing, pushing God away from the island, and living fully as an apostate.

Why? Cuz I bet you thinkin about my ideas now. I challenged you and made you think about martyrdom outside the scope of dogma. That's what the movie was supposed to do for you and you didnt get it. Learn a lesson. Go watch the movie again with this idea in mind.

If you read through my comments, you might realize that I already though about your ideas. After all, I watched the movie. It's pretty clear. I'm quite certain, however, that your ideas also are exactly as they were before you watched it. Except you watched a movie which conformed to your understanding, and I watched a movie which differed. So, I must ask, have you ever actually bothered to understand the opposing side? Have you bothered to dig into the theology, or the history of the church, or even a strong secular moral philosophy? I mean, there's plenty that the Jesuits did wrong; they did many things which contributed greatly to the turmoil, things which they could have avoided. Ireland, for example, had been even more hostile to the faith, and yet St. Patrick, after being imprisoned was able to establish a faith in Ireland which has remained extremely strong until only a few years ago. These Jesuits were too idealistic and did not seem to try and convert in the right manner. They followed much more of the Portuguese and Spanish style which was not simply religiously dogmatic, but culturally dogmatic as well. They carried with them not only their faith, but a sense of superiority. None of this changes, however, the sheer brutality of the governing men. I also learned in this movie, despite it only being a movie, a great deal about simple faith, about faith in trying circumstances, and faith without a strong church presence. These things galvanized my own faith, and caused me to reevaluate my own lackadaisical approach. How about now, you take your own advice, and learn a lesson also.

If you hate the ending of Scorsese, you should check the endings from the movie and the book. Or for better undestanding the book of Ferreira about his criticism to the christianity. I was only talking about Rodrigues' reason to apostate in face of the torture.

To imply that any church or powerful organization exists without a certain amount of brutality at the fringes of things, direct or indirect, is naive. Beautiful, ornate chapels exist not because any of the men building them wanted them to exist. They were built to serve the ego of God-Kings.

I haven't read them, hadn't known about the older movie actually, but know of the book. From my understanding, it is much better, and presents much stronger moral dilemmas, with even less suggestion of an answer. From an artistic criticism only, I greatly disliked that he went so far as to call it silence, and then made it not silent in the very moment where questions should have been greatest. So to the extent that film criticism asks us to consider the events as real events (to some extent anyways), it can only be understood as God or as Satan. The way it's filmed I think discourages reading it as the second, even though that would be more theologically accurate. Had that not happened, even if it the painting of Jesus remained, I think Rodrigues' character and choice would have been far more interesting, and the movie would have been much better, artistically and theologically.

You say this with great confidence, but very little historical understanding. Certainly, the history of Christianity is full of depravity also, but you are equivocating things without even knowing anything about them. There is a great deal of difference between the fringes of things and the center of things, for example. There are great many beautiful churches which exist solely for the praise and glory of God. While the Fuedal and Tyranical eras were certainly full of Egos, there were no God-Kings in Christian Europe. The closest things would be Henry the VIII, Louis the 14th, Napoleon, some of the Czars, and Several of the Byzantine Emperors. It is also a pretty serious mistake to cast a very modern and simple psychological diagnosis across all of history, especially when that psychological idea is very, very weak.

Wow. I know I said this already, but you legitimately are delusional. You've warped your sense of logic to conform to your poorly-understood beliefs about this issue.
You are morally responsible for every choice you make, no matter the circumstances or the other people involved.
Here are a few scenarios:
A person is going to walk off a cliff without realizing it, but you know this and are able to stop them.
A tree is going to fall on someone, and you have the ability to push them out of the way to save their life.
A person is going to kill another person, and you have the ability to stop them.

In each situation, you have a choice to make, and you are absolutely morally responsible for that choice. Obviously, which shouldn't have to be explained, the person in the third example who is going to do the killing is also morally responsible because they are also making a choice, but their choice does not absolve you of responsibility.
It's honestly amazing to me that you don't understand this, but I hope this helps. Even if it doesn't, you legitimately need to give this a lot more thought, because I'm telling you seriously that you're fatally wrong about this, and a fucked up moral foundation is very destructive to virtually every aspect of your life.

>this thread represents the consensus of the world
>If everybody's doing it, it must be right
I didn't say either of those things.
If you're surrounded by people telling you you're wrong and they're giving you actual arguments as to why, you need to take it seriously and do some real reflection.

ITT: self-serious faggots who can't see the forrest for the trees. whether or not you agree with every choice that the characters make should be irrelevant when you're judging the value of a film.

How much is the Glory of God worth to you? How much would you pay? How much would you let others suffer? How many sacrifices of others are you willing to make? For the church? The church that is no longer going to produce a miracle for you? A church that's dead in the wind out here in this harsh, unforgiving foreign hellhole? You speak the word and you are rebuked. The more you speak, the more you lose. And not just you. It's not about you and your relationship with God anymore. It's about the relationship your flock has with God. They might go down with you, if you say they should. But why would you? For the Pope in the Vatican? The Holy Father? Where is he now? Will I ever see him? From where flows faith, out here in Japan? Where do I get my fix now?

Back to bed, sport.

How do you not understand that evil people are not a force of nature. A murderer is not like a cliff, or a falling tree, or a runaway train. You are making a completely invalid comparison. A murderer is not even like a wild animal. And what's more, as much as you are obligated to try and help these people, in all three scenarios, in each there are still limits to what you are expected to do, even to what you can do. If a man held a gun to my hand, and demanded you hand over all your money to him, you would not be in the wrong if you didn't do it. He would be the only one at fault. Your choice is whether to legitimize the demand or not; your choice is whether to validate his evil. It is his choice whether to kill me, and your action neither changes the nature of his choice, nor makes the choice for him. Even if you gave him the money, he might still kill me; you cannot know, and you cannot control him. Now, if you had the option of calling 911 without him knowing and you did not, then yes you are at some fault. Also, if you took some action which put me at great risk, you still wouldn't be at fault. With the way you think, I hope you never work with someone who has experienced trauma.

No one has given an actual argument, though.

Nobody is implying that the suffers of others doesn't hurt to oneself. It's called empathy and is a powerfull concept in the christian dogma. But even the love for others falls second in the faith/love for God. Also i want to point out that two evil deeds didn't made for a good one.

The Glory of God is the only thing of value. I would give everything that is mine to give, and I would not stop anyone from doing likewise. I would encourage others to do likewise. Although I know the flame is not extinguished, and is in fact inextinguishable, I would not change from this even if I were the last. It is all for God, for anything which has being comes from God.

Unironically seek help. You legitimately need therapy.

Well, if all the rest is just satanism to you, then I hang my hat here. Good luck on your travels.

You keep making the situation about someone threatening your own life, when that's a completely irrelevant scenario.
Someone is threatening the life of an innocent person, and you have the ability to stop them. That's it. That's the scenario being discussed.
Your argument is that they are making a choice to commit an evil act, and nothing you do changes that. But this isn't what's being argued, we're talking about your moral responsibility as someone who can prevent the loss of innocent life.
In other words, the argument you're making doesn't support your conclusion, it's totally unrelated. It's like arguing "all dogs have fur, therefore birds can fly."

When you are presented with a choice, you are morally responsible for the consequences of your choice. And choosing not to choose, or non-action, is in fact a choice in itself, so you can't get out of it. We constantly have scenarios forced upon us where we must make choices, and you cannot weasel out of responsibility by claiming that you don't want to be in this scenario, that you didn't choose to be in this scenario and therefore you aren't responsible for the choices you make now. If that were the case, none of us would be responsible for any choice we make ever, because none of us chose to be born.
I don't know how many more ways I can say the same thing. This is extremely simple, and yet your sense of logic and morality are so skewed that you can't comprehend something that children understand.

Because to stop them you need to do an act of evil. That is it. You may no see the apostate to a big deal. But for a christian is a big one. The religion is basically build in the acts of people how don't give a inch to compromise their faith. I am not a practicing and can understand it.

All the rest isn't just satanism. Very little is actually satanism. And there is still truth and understanding to be found, even in places it is unexpected. This was even one of the errors the Jesuits make in Silence; they fail to understand the culture they are speaking to. They speak with great zeal and confidence, but have little concern for what was already believed, and how their preaching might affect the nation. While there is certainly something good and Christlike about teaching to the poor, they could have also or first attempted to convince the rulers. To preach to the poor first is often to take the path of persecution; while this cannot be said to be wrong in and of itself, it is wrong to choose this out of pride. Had the Jesuits instead worked to find understanding among the rulers, perhaps they would not have seen Christianity as a threat, as it shouldn't have been. The same things Ferreira thought prevented the Japanese from understanding could have instead been a source of great discovery. If you push me to the extreme, I will go without hesitation, but hopefully you agree that is hardly necessary.

Should i watch it? Its so long

Their faith in what, though?

I don't remember if in the movie mentions that Inoue Masashige is also an apostate. Also they didn't mention the Arima clan who was the principal driving force behind the embrace of christianity.

>they are making a choice to commit an evil act
>but this isn't what's being argued
If you're not arguing this, then you are making a dishonest argument. It is the most essential element. It is precisely what I have been arguing, and what is put forward in the film. In the scenario put forward in the film, Rodrigues cannot prevent the loss of an innocent life. He has literally no control over the situation. He did not put the people there. He is not threatening to kill them. He has no means to kill them. He himself is bound and imprisoned. Before he is asked to do anything, he is subjected to the sounds of their suffering. They even send an old mentor, who is now a tempter, to confuse him. The inquisitor knows precisely what he is doing and is in control of every element. If he wanted, he could even force Rodrigues to step on it. The only choice Rodrigues can make is whether to denounce Christ or not. You act as though the inquisitor is a mere machine, as though Rodrigues' action automatically brings a specific, known, certain, invariable action out of the inquisitor who has no moral agency of his own. But this is not so. All these things the Inquisitor does, and he does precisely to make Rodrigues feel responsible, even though he can do nothing one way or the other. The inquisitor does this because he knows that whether Rodrigues apostosizes or not matters more than the individuals involved. That is why is willing to do what he does. These are mere peasants to him, and Rodrigues is a stranger whom he could kill at any moment with impunity. But Rodrigues is someone important to those Christians. If apostatizes, so will all his followers. If all his followers apostatize, then the Christian faith will die in Japan. So, Rodrigues does not have any control in this scenario. He is only tricked into believe so. The inquisitor convinces Rodrigues that he is responsible for something which only the Inquisitor can decide. Apparently he convinced you also.

>I am not a practicing and can understand it.
Are you fucking kidding me? You've been arguing for what Christians believe this whole time and you aren't even Christian?

I'm a practising Catholic.
You're wrong.
End of discussion.
Thanks for wasting my time, you egotistical sperg.

Faith as Faith. With capital letter. The one achieved through God's grace.

The movie doesn't mention any of this.

You're a delusional fucking idiot

Differents user i only get recently.

>isn't that what Christ would have done?
No.

That wasn't me. That is a new person. This is me, the one who has been arguing throughout the thread.
If you're practicing, yous should try speaking to someone more knowledgeable. They'll probably tell you I've been imprudent in how I have said it, but if they know what they're talking about (which is uncertain anymore) then they will admit that I am correct.

You are very self-centered, and unless you had said so, I never would've been able to tell that you believed.

He literally publically converts to Shinto/Buddhism and helps Liam Neeson round up Catholic Japanese for the government to kill.

Fuck Garfield's character and fuck Neeson's character. Both are apostates and killers of Christians, Adam Driver and the martyred Japanese were the only true Christians.

>isn't that what Christ would have done?
I thought Christ's decision on that and the resulting torture and crucifixion is reasonably well known

The most interesting thing in the entire film is when the old dude deflates.

Sometimes passion projects are for niche audiences.

Frankly, I don't want you to even seem like you're agreeing with me if that's how you're going to express your frustration and discontent. I understand why you feel that way, but it is counter-productive to be vulgar and angry.

>unless you had said so, I never would've been able to tell that you believed.
What? Did you reply to the wrong person or are you just being delusional again?

I'm angry because Scorsese has that hidden rosary at Garfield's funeral as if that makes up for being a apostate too cowardly for martyrdom who helps the government kill Christians.

Are you not?

The movie isn't against what you're saying. The point is that apostatizing was wrong but Christ came for the sinners and was willing to take that weight from him. If he could still be saved after letting Christ take that burden for the rest of his life and only believing in him in silence is another matter and only God knows.

He only works as a ICE agent, looking for smuggling christian imagery. Not to mentions that even without them the Christianity in Japan was doomend after the Shimabara Rebellion, who happens some years later after the apostate of Fernandes.

Where in the movie did it have him help hunt Christians? I dont remember that.

I know. As I said, I understand why you feel angry. But we ought to love and have sympathy even for those who have done great evil. It is clear he made the wrong choice, but I pray that I never face the trials he faced. With God's help I would persevere, but I would hate to be placed in that situation and find that my faith is weak. Those who were life Driver's character are to be revered and honored and emulated, but those like Rodrigues are to be prayed for. It is difficult to image, but simply out of our lack of knowledge, who are we to say there could be no small space in heaven for his soul. Despite the evil he caused, how can I say that he would not survive purgatory? I am doubtful. I cannot say to anyone that he did. I cannot accept his actions or encourage them. I must denounce those ideas. But as for the man, I do not have sufficient knowledge.

No. I just read what you said about the movie and it shocked me how crazy you sound. I wasn't following the rest of your conversation. I don't follow any dogma, but it doesn't take a Christian to see that you're delusional if you believe the bullshit you said in that comment.

It sound that the intetion of Scorse was to depicted the faith as a internal self-struggle that never ends even with seems all the foundations of it seems destroyed. Not to mentions that martydom is not something that one should actively seeks, but granted by God's grace. You know who propably ends as a martyr? Kichijiro. Even with all the times he denies Christ.

I would not say that is the point. I could be wrong, but the movie seemed to strongly resist a reading which placed the apostasy as something morally wrong. Further, while the silent faith is a question that could only be fully answered by God for that individual, it is still a question for all of us, and still I insist not a question that is good to ask in the why Scorsese did.

Thank fuck this place isn't completely braindead yet

pretty sure spreading the religion wasn't one of Jesus' intentions and it's just added to the books. So they shouldn't have baptized the nips in the first place. The inquisitor was right. Nips already have their religion, taking another one is like taking another woman in a happily married couple's house. It'll only cause more trouble than it solves.

If you truly believe Jesus would rather you allow innocent people to suffer and die than for you to risk sacrificing your own soul to save them, you don't understand a goddamn thing about what it means to follow Christ.

How charitable. I'm sure that's what makes you such a principled and moral person.

The point of the movie is that Japan is rotten to the core and cannot change.

Not until some big dick Anglo descendants dropped a few nukes on em.

What was his intent then? If something is true, it is good for anyone and everyone to know it as much as they are able. He didn't just think he was saying true things, he told people he was The Truth.

But Rodrigues ended up causing the deaths of more Christians anyway.

You realize this was a man who never got God's help, and thus could not persevere? At a certain point, God has deserted you, and your prayer is worth precisely fuck-all. And you keep trying to remove the humanity of the man. It's gross. Like, yeah, he suffered, but not enough for my personal liking. He could have thrown more in the pot there for the catholic church, but he decided to take a mulligan on the whole deal. He is only in hell through your eyes because his interests aligned against those of whoever your spiritual handler is.

>Muh Nuke
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception_Cathedral,_Nagasaki

>It's gross
lol r*ddit

Love for God is still above to love of your neighbor.

The amount of sanctimonious ego-stroking in this thread is sickening.

The purpose of the film was to portray how complex and unimaginably difficult the issue was for the priest. It was to show how unclear it is in many situations what the right choice is, and how big a toll it takes on someone to be faced with such choices.

If you look at the priest apostating and judge him for it, you're exactly what's wrong with modern Christianity.
Christ is the only judge of mankind. Anyone who passes judgement on their fellow man is committing a greater sin than whatever it is that's being judged. Not a single one of you is any better than that priest. We're all sinners, and none of us are worthy of Christ's grace. You should all be ashamed.

Jesus commands us to toil, to labor, to suffer. He has come for all souls, and would not have someone lose their soul that another might keep it. How many times must this be said? On the cross, at the moment of his death, Christ knew all the suffering everyone would ever face, and he still gave himself up. We suffer now so that we might know eternal peace. If someone would kill, you do not stop them from doing evil by denying your faith, for they have already committed the evil in their hearts. If their soul is already saved, then you do nothing by saving their bodies. I think it's you who do not understand.

Wow.
Just wow.
You do not understand Christianity even a little bit.

>never got God's help
Says you, and says him. But it is quite clear, he did not know how to listen. God is never silent, but we are often deaf. Before you keep speaking in this manner, I strongly encourage you to learn about what you are saying. Your understanding of sin, hell, and salvation are quite broken.

>but the movie seemed to strongly resist a reading which placed the apostasy as something morally wrong
The whole Kichijiro's arc is about apostatizing being wrong.

>We're all sinners
Talk for yourself, i could kill some of you and get a afterlife full of big titted women.

When the fuck was jesus ever a commander of anything? He was a drifting philosopher with a small band of followers. I hate when people get into the divinity nonsense.

...

You hate it when people take into account all the records we have of Jesus instead of picking and choosing whatever information you like about him and ignoring the rest like you evidently do?

No, fool, yours are. The afterlife is not what you think it is. You're a deeply faithful weirdo who I couldn't understand if I spent 20 years talking to. Enough bad breaks and anyone will lose faith. You're just a pussy who doesn't understand the nature of risk.

I think Jesus the man, not whatever it is he's described in the books, is a revolutionary wanting to revise the existing laws in Judaism. He just kind of used his death to cement whatever he said was the absolute truth. Then men took advantage of it and created another religion. Pretty sure he didn't baptized anyone when he was alive, there was no need for it as he didn't create a religion and didn't intend to.

I've been the main person responding in these threads. If you'd actually read it, you'd see I have never judged the actual men who lived this horrific and torturous experience. Rather, my contention from the beginning, which I have explicitly stated multiple times, is solely with the directorial choices of Scorsese. Even in this I have not condemned him, but rather spoken to the error in it, with even positive and charitable assumption of his intent. My point was that, in as much as there is a value in understanding the difficulty of such a trial, the way Scorcese presents it suggests a conclusion which cannot be accepted. Certainly, it is only one way to read it, but as you can see from this thread, that is the primary way in which it was read, and given his own life and public statements, it's quite reasonable to think Scorsese is sympathetic to that reading, even if he himself has not come to a firm conclusion. All that said, Jesus explicitly tells us that the greatest sin is to deny God. There are no commandments greater than to give Glory to God and to honor our mother and father. It is more than possible to denounce the position taken by Rodrigues, without passing judement on him as a man. After all, as I have said many times, I pray to never experience anything close to what is portrayed in this movie. I have experienced trials that pale in comparison, and know I have been found wanting. I do not have the place to say whether Rodrigues would be in heaven or not. But I can say, with the help and support of scripture and many great theologians, that he made the wrong choice.

Gomenasai, my name is Cristóvão-Sama.

I’m a 64 year old Portuguese ex-Kirishitan (Apostate for you gaijin). I write about Astronomy and Medicine at the local temple, and spend my days perfecting my denial of Deus and fucking my state supplied Japanese waifu. (delicate, flat chested, petite)

I write about Kengi-roku every day, this superior text can cut clean through Kirishitan faith because it is revised over a thousand times, and is vastly superior to any other deceitful faith on earth. I learned about Dainichi fifteen years ago, and I have been getting better at meditating every day.

I speak Japanese fluently, both the Kamigata and Edokko dialect, and I write fluently as well. I know everything about Japanese history and their bushido code, which I follow 100%

When I get permission to travel, I am moving to Edo to attend a prestigious Zen Temple to learn more about their magnificent religion. I hope I can become an advisor for the shogunate or a koan designer!

I have been given several kimonos, which I wear around the trading posts. I have gotten used to wearing them since moving to Japan, so I can fit in easier. I bow to my pupils and priests and speak Japanese to Rodrigues as often as I can, but rarely does he manage to respond.

Wish me luck in Edo!

Attached: silence-05276_r.jpg (1920x1080, 283K)

the plot itself wasn't interesting at all.

Alright, motherfucker, but if the men who had apostasized cannot be judged, then why can Scorsese? What do you know about the man and his personal struggles with belief? Why can you render judgement upon some and not others? Sounds suspiciously like a matter of convenience.

I'm not so sure. As I saw it, Kichijiro's apostasy was presented as truly fearful--selfish, but in a very human and relatable way. Kichijiro was much like us; even if we might revere those who were martyred, Kichijiro seemed to present a foil to the viewer to help us recognize how we might really be. In this way, Kichijiro supports Rodrigues' decision, rather than acting as contrast. It is almost as if to say, if we would do this wrong thing simply for our own sake, then certainly there is a nobility in doing it for the sake of others. Again, this is why I find the movie so troubling. It focuses on the pain and suffering, but does not ever seem to strongly challenge the inquisitor. The inquisitor's final choice is presented as hardly being a choice at all. On the one hand, this reflects how Rodrigues must have seen it; with that in mind, Scorcese has always been very good at presentign subjetive experience in a way that feels very objective and relatable; however, I think in this case, that becomes something somewhat objectionable, to the extent it supports something which should be perhaps sympathized with, but not supported.

Your position cannot be held. The claims he is attributed as making are incompatible with your view. The prophecies he is attributed with fulfilling will not allow your interpretation. If these things were lied about, then there is nothing about him that should be accepted. There is no reason to consider him a historical person at all. But of course, that too would be absurd. So we need to accept that he was an historical person, and that he at least said and did much of what is attributed to him and frankly all of it. If we do this, then either he was a great deceiver, or else his is the Son of God. There is no room in between.

Strong theological argument. Where did you learn it?

So you haven't actually read the books then?

This.
That user is legitimately delusional, it's been clear throughout this entire thread. He bends and twists everything to make himself right. It's disgraceful.

Masahiro Shinoda's version was way better because it's really about western colonialism and Japan's love-hate relation with the west

Attached: Silence-295672219-large.jpg (356x500, 43K)

Christianity, or as I like to call it neo-Judaism, is such a fucking gay religion.

Nice headcanon, bud.

>Even in this I have not condemned him, but rather spoken to the error in it, with even positive and charitable assumption of his intent.
Scorcese has expressed many things, both in recorded conversation and in his art, which I find objectionable. But once again, no; how can I condemn the man? How much of his life do I not know? On a personal level, I find it difficult to believe he has a strong and good faith, but I am not priest, I am not friend of his--what is my belief of his? What value can it be to him or me? I urge you, though, read more carefully.

>evil people are not a force of nature.
Of course they are.

Dude, jesus was a guy who was trying to speak a relevant truth to people who he thought he could help. He was not divine. There was nothing ornate or special about him.

What have I bent and twisted? I feel that I have been quite consistent, and rather clear. You've called me delusional many times now, but you have not explained why in any detail. If you continue to defame me like this, I ask that you at least give proper explanation. After all, if you are right, should you not help me see the error of my ways?

If only this were true. The world would be a much less difficult place. But evil people are hardly any different from me and you.

>How do you not understand that evil people are not a force of nature. A murderer is not like a cliff, or a falling tree, or a runaway train. You are making a completely invalid comparison.
Holy shit you're retarded.
The details of the scenario, whether another person is the threat or some force of nature, has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether you're responsible for your own choices. I mean Jesus Christ, how do you not understand that?

I am not even a christian and totally can see how what are you saying is a total disrespect to them. You should try to understand better the reasons behind the people's faith instead of desestimate it.

Again--the only way you know about him is through the works which claim his divinity. If all the claims which are attributed to him, and all the prophecies attributed to him were all lies, then why is his existence even to be believed?

I never said jesus was wrong, or didnt have a strong message. What I'm saying is we dont need to believe he was supernaturally empowered to do the things he did. Anyone can spread the word.

>you're responsible for your own choices
This is the part I understand perfectly well, and which you don't seem to grasp. The inquisitor is a person. He is the only one responsible for his own actions. There is literally nothing else that anyone can do which strips him of this responsibility. With this responsibility, he is the only one who is responsible for the pain, suffering, and death of those Christians. At any moment he wishes, he can stop it all. He doesn't even need a reason. It is his actions which are evil. The choice given to Rodrigues is a false choice; it's answer changes nothing about what the inquisitor can and will do. The inquisitor brought about the scenario, and he is the only one who can end the scenario. He can end it any way he chooses, regardless of what Rodrigeus does or does not do. The inquisitor creates an illusion of consequence that does not exist.

>What I'm saying is we dont need to believe he was supernaturally empowered to do the things he did.
That is exactly the offensive part of your statement.

They're not to be trusted as they've been revised a million times. They're not accurate historical documentation of that time. For all we know, he could just be one of the first stand up comedians and just say shit that would get on the populace's nerves like I am God. Just to show people they don't need to follow set laws from one religion as absolute.

>I never said Jesus was wrong, or didn't have a strong message
But that's exactly what you are saying. Jesus makes explicit claims of divinity and holiness. Either he was lying or he was lied about. If he was lied about that seriously, he couldn't have had that strong a message. After all, if Jesus isn't the Son of God, what message does he even have?

Jesus is openly vocal that following him will tear families apart and that Christians will be hated and persecuted. Fuck off with your humanism.

This movie was 9/10. I wish Driver was in it more but it was still powerful as fuck and the cinematography was amazing

You do realize that the textual support for the bible is greater than Herodotus, right? And the more people who say the same things over a wide space of time and area increase its likelihood of being true. If the bible is not historically accurate, than we can take no ancient document as historically accurate. Even the greatest skeptic, if they do their research, could not conclude something like "he was a stand up comedian," (though, I must admit, I think God's sense of humor is greatly overlooked). Finally, if anything is true, as in really true, that means it's true all the time for all people in all places. That's what Truth is. So, if there is anything true, is should absolutely be shared and accepted by all. To suggest that the truth is only for some people some of the time is to say it isn't true. So why even bother phrasing it as you do?

Based thread
This guy gets it

Cool it with the language brother. You had a strong point until that moment.

Based

To love your neighbor like yourself, fool. Jesus was a middle-eastern jew whose father was rumored to be a passing Roman soldier, which, at least from a mathematical standpoint, seems like a more plausible explanation for the birth of the historical figure we know as Jesus than impregnation by God.

None of that matters. Jesus tried to do right for his community by employing self-sacrifice. I'm willing to gamble history has had many figures that have had a similar story to jesus, whether or not they'd ever heard of him.

I appreciate your support. This one's been difficult.

By your logic, if a stranger hands you a loaded gun, you can shoot whoever you want with it and not be responsible because the stranger is the one who gave it to you. They put you in the situation of having to choose whether to shoot someone or not, so whatever you choose from that point isn't your responsibility because you didn't choose to be in that situation
This is literally what you're saying.
Do you understand how insane you are now?

>meditation for Scorsese
It was an adaptation ffs.

>Love your neighbor as yourself
The only reason you can accept such a statement as simple, or obvious, or easy is because you live in the wake of 2000 years of people--100 generations--who held that to be divine revelation form God himself. You think it is easy, but how easy can it be when most people hate themselves? You are literally taking the wisdom of God, and taking it on for yourself. Do you think that if you diminish Christ you can make yourself out as a wise man? If anyone had lived even remotely close to Jesus, how could we have not heard of him? Do not forget, he spoke primarily to the most ignorant of a backwater nation in an empire that spanned half the known-world. Of all the people alive then, perhaps less than a percent had heard of him before he died, if that. To most people who heard him, he was no one. Many dismissed him. Sure, they poured out onto the streets when he arrived in Jerusalem, after years of literally performing miracles, and in a week they killed him, and he was forgotten by most--as they considered him, another false messiah. That you know of him at all, given the conditions of his life, is itself evidence that whatever he was, he was not just another street preacher.

>And he told us explicitly to suffer for him, to never lie about our faith, even under the threat of pain and death
Sounds like Christianity is only for the strong, what should the weak people who fear death and torture do? Go to Hell?

It was.

Then I just dont care. If Christians wish to pluck out their own eyes instead of seeing the truth, that's on them.

Is not even remotely what the user said. The position of Rodrigues was: do a sinful act or i will continue doing this sinful act. And somehow by the option of doing a sinful act, good will be breed.

How do you call that logic? Whoever holds the gun has control of the gun. You are suggesting the inquisitor is a gun in the hands of Rodrigues, but the inquisitor is himself a man with moral agency. The gun has no agency, so it shoots whenever the trigger is pulled, wherever it is pointing. The inquisitor is a moral agent, and so he acts according to his own will in his own manner. No one else can force him to do anything. What Rodrigues does or says does not force the inquisitor or cause him to do one thing or another. Once again, evil people are still people. You cannot keep comparing them to objects. They choose evil, and they choose it freely. They are not machines, but they are just like you.

Dude the bible has a motive. I could never trust anything like that. Textual support means shit when it comes to Jesus as everyone sees him subjectively and he didn't wrote anything, just the people around him. Any other historical text that we can trust people can be objective about is a million times more trustworthy.

God brings low the mighty and makes strong the weak. A true faith will be given all the strength it needs. This is why it is so important to be clear about the faith. The ignorant will be forgiven according to their ignorance, but those who have sown confusion will bear responsibility for their fruits.

>This is not a trolly problem.
No, it's not, because a trolly problem is a much more complex ethical dilemma.
In the trolly problem, your non-action will kill many people, while your action will kill just one. This is a very different choice.
In the scenario being discussed, your non-action will lead to the torture and death of many innocent people, while your action will save them all from torture and death.
If you are presented with a choice to either save someone's life or let them die, you aren't absolved of responsibility by the fact that you didn't want to be in this situation. At best you're being extremely disingenuous.

In the movie the character of Kichijiro commited apostate many times. Failed in accepting God. He was pretty weak. But in the end he dies a martyr after the japaneses find his reliquary. Even Rodrigues in all his anger and defeat could never abandon his Faith. The salvation is in reach of everybody.

I legitimately can't tell if you're full of shit or if you're actually this retarded. Either way I give up.

Alright, I don't think you understand what is meant by textual support. As in, our earliest copy of Herodotus dates to after our earliest copy of the Gospels, and yet the original work was written hundreds of years before Christ. That means that our earliest copy was itself a copy of a copy, many times over. We have practically zero knowledge about the history of its transmission before that point. We're confident enough in it, but there's really no telling what had changed form the earliest versions. If you reject the validity of the text of the Gospels, then you also need to reject just about every other ancient work on the same grounds. Everything is done with a motive, and hardly anything was recorded back then, compared to how much we record now. (This conversation, for example, is a record of something which would never have been recorded even 20 years ago.)

The problem is you don't understand his faith. I totally not buy it, but if you put time in study and learn about the christian theology you could understand why they reach this conclusions. You had the right to despise them, but first you need to do a honest aproach to learn.

kek

I guess I'm just trying to make the wisdom of god my responsibility by not condemning men for the places god takes them. They know not what they do, man.

I am sure you get in many fights with your parents. You seem completely unconcerned with what is actually said by the person you're arguing with. The crux of this ethical dilemma lies in
>will lead to
You are taking for granted that one action or another by Rodrigues will lead to their deaths, and that a particular action prevents it. This is only true if the thing which threatens their life is itself passive and without agency. But this is not the case. The inquisitor is a moral agent. The dilemma has got nothing to do with what Rodrigues wants. The inquisitor has created the scenario, set the terms, and is in control of every element. You accept him as a part of the environment, as he wishes you to see him, and yet the entire situation is by his hand and will. It is a false choice. This is a quintessential tactic of evil, and is one of the most readily observable hallmarks. Evil people work very hard to make you feel like you are responsible for what they are doing. Because most people fail to recognize evil people as people, most people fall for this. Evil feels like an otherworldly force. It is very difficult for a normal person to recognize that someone with the same type of conscious and agency would intentionally do evil. You will hear most people say "everybody believes they are right." It's not true. Evil people know what they are doing, and they know it is evil. They are not automatons. They are not a loaded gun. They are not a trolley. They are just like you. At no point in this scenario does the Inquisitor relinquish any control. Nothing stops him from killing his prisoners after the apostasy except the very same will which imprisoned them in the first place. You can only claim that Rodrigues' choice impacts the situation if you deny that the inquisitor has agency. If the inquisitor has agency, then he is fully and totally responsible for his own actions, regardless of what Rodrigues does.

read

fpbp, he felt completely out of place there. Wish it had been someone like Joaquin Phoenix.

Did u watch the movie fucko? Thats exactly what he does

Duddeee again, when it comes to Jesus it's different since he's just a single guy. Any other texts that says at this time, the romans enjoyed watching gladiators fight for entertainment can be backed with hard evidence of remains and the actual fucking Colosseum. I'm no history buff but I just can't trust whatever was written about a single guy by his followers. Did the romans write anything about him? I think I read a roman from that time wrote something about him describing him as wise which I think is true. But the gospels, I just can't trust.

How can anyone be responsible for the wisdom of God?

Alright, so if your friends ever come and tell me how you're very intelligent, I wont believe them. How can I trust them? Unless the President says it, it's just not reliable.

>me and you
Forces of nature

Then evil doesn't exist. Why bother commenting?

By spreading the word and living the life! Adhering to the spirit of Jesus's message and not the literal content. He only said that shit about divinity so people would actually listen to what he had to say. It's hard to get attention as a broke ass carpenter in the desert.

What makes you think what any head of state says would be reliable?

shit sucks

Nope, you shouldn't, unless there's definite proof of it. Texts and words alone can't prove someone's existence and most importantly his ideas. Any other historical texts like how the people lived at that time can be backed with actual archeological remains.

>I am sure you get in many fights with your parents.
I'm 36 years old, and condescension isn't an argument.

Other people's choices do not exempt you from moral responsibility for your choices.

As a side note, you write paragraphs upon paragraphs where a single sentence would suffice, which is a classic sign of someone trying to sound more intelligent than they actually are.

The only people you're fooling are those who are even more naive than you.

You're legitimately the least Christian poster in this thread, even including the ones who have explicitly said they're not Christian. You're a disgrace, and you should be ashamed.

*beiseto

>Christian Lord guide my hand against you roman popery!

Attached: BillButch.png (960x540, 541K)

You say those sentences are not worthwhile, but you seem to have not read them. Never have I disagreed that the choices of others remove moral responsibility from you own choices. In fact, my argument relies on it! There is no choice Rodrigues can make that invalidates or transfers or limits the moral responsibility the Inquisitor bears for his actions. If the Inquisitor would cause those people to suffer and then kill them if Rodrigues does not apostatize, that is a choice the inquisitor has made for himself. Rodrigues does not force his hand. Rodrigues cannot do nor say anything which would force the inquisitor to kill them. I still completely fail to understand how you do not see this? The inquisitor bears the full moral responsibility for the pain and suffering and death of those people because no choice Rodrigues makes can exempt him from it.

>he lied so people would listen to him
>he's still worth listening to it.
I guess, if you're following that example, you're perfectly open to lying. Why, then, should you accept what you have to say at all?

Bullshit

It's just crazy to me that you think jesus was a man who never did any wrong. Its frankly unhealthy to believe that, and puts you in mind for self-flagellation anytime you find yourself on the dark side of the moon. Likely the canonization of him and the claims he made turned him into something more than reality. It's really late, but I'll leave you with this: tomorrow think of things that you personally could do to love your neighbor, not things you think jesus would want you to do.

You're clearly so far up your own ass that you're beyond reason. And Christians wonder why so many people dislike then. It's because of narcissistic holier-than-thou pseudointellectual pricks like yourself.

>It's just crazy to me that you think jesus was a man who never did any wrong
Because he was not a man. Is the son of God who was made flesh. You and him are arguing in aproachs totally diferent.

At what point have I made this about myself? At what point have I claimed superiority? I have reiterated multiple times that these are not my original ideas, that I have no place to condemn the actual people who experienced this great torment or the hypothetical person in the film, or even Scorcese for making the film, and my entire purpose has been only to criticize those elements of the film which present Catholic theology in an inaccurate way, or present arguments against Catholic theology in a weak way. And once more, please identify where my logic fails. You placed your argument on the unvoidable moral responsibility a person has over their actions, and I agreed. After recognizing that, am I wrong that the Inquisitor is the one whose actions are directly and unvoidably responsible for the suffering and potential death of his prisoners? Lastly, if this is true, how is it at all a reflection on either me or you? Would not the only thing which reflects on us be the manner in which we debated, since, after all, truth and falsehood belong to no one? Whichever one of us is right, it is no merit to them. So if I am wrong, please show me, for it can only harm me to believe something that is wrong.

Why should I wait until tomorrow? Why do you think I am posting here?

>your shit smells worse than theirs
all organized religion is absolutely worthless.

>Adam “Kylo” Driver

Skipped.

That's religious people for you, user. You don't bother reasoning with them. You can kill them, torture them (if you're into that sort of thing), but never reason. They don't believe in thinking for themselves and never will. Sucks to be born into that, but check out "how far we've come." :^)

This is probably the most based thread Yea Forums has ever made

different user but I don't get why you're getting attacked so hard on this. I can't spot anything you've said that is contradicted by the bible or Catholic dogma and most of it is pretty easy to support. I think the people arguing against what you've said probably haven't actually read the bible or have a knowledge of Catholic teachings.

they understand what he's saying, they just don't like it

I just don't get why they're calling that answer to the film insane though, when that's pretty much bang on what the church teaches.
Wow, big shocker, if you preach Jesus' teachings you are in fact expected to be willing to suffer like Christ did. I mean you've got brainlets in here arguing that Christ would have denied God to prevent people from suffering on earth as if they have no idea what that weird t symbol in Christianity actually means.

Even understanding everything you typed out here, I can still easily say religion is for fools. Your precious Jesus believed as he wished to and died for it. Good for him. Everyone needs to come into beliefs the same way he did - on their own, through living their own lives. Whether anyone would choose to die for those beliefs or survive a situation needs to be their own choice. Always think for yourself and never blindly follow someone else's path. It doesn't work, and it never will.

ITT user discovers not everyone agrees with catholic dogma.

you only thought it sucked cuz you couldn't stop picturing Spiderman and Kylo Ren

I don't mind people arguing against it, I'm saying I don't get the dumb responses arguing that it wasn't Christian. By all means disagree with Christianity itself, though.

Absolutely destroyed

You almost had me with that first post but went a little too on the nose with this one, good try though

calm down. only thing being destroyed here is everyone's time and any actual effort.

>Rumored to be a passing roman soldier
Ah, I see someone has been reading their Talmud. Hello Rabbi!!

Isn't Avatar the perfect example of style over substance? Everyone praised it for amazing CGI, we all acknowledged the plot was laughably bad but it still made a fortune.

What is talmud? I imagine Jesus's parentage is a talking point among jews.

Already sounds miles better. People looking at other people for what they actually do and are, and not what they claim to believe is always superior. Nothing superfluous gets in the way.

>condescension isn't an argument
>has been a prick the entire thread
back to r*ddit, liberal

>According to the inquisition, and a man convinced by the inquisition.
The novel the movie is based on has the protag expressing those doubts long before he is captured

This and Paterson made me realize Driver is actually a great actor.

Attached: IMG_20190702_125027.jpg (1080x1065, 269K)