"Avatar Is the Most Demonic, Satanic Film I've Ever Seen."

[Raven Gold]

I am a believer in Jesus Christ, and I didn't see much wrong with Avatar. Sure, it does not in any way represent Christianity or anything that we know for that matter, but I reckon that was the point of making the movie on some strange planet in the middle of the universe, and not on earth...

The bible was intended for man and speaks about man. Not about intelligent beings on other planets. Who knows how God would reveal himself to other people? If you believe in God, then don't put him in a box. He is God afterall.

In my opinion, take the movie for what it is, a movie. Nothing more, nothing less. If you don't enjoy it, walk away and no harm done.

I don't belive in Christianity, but I do belive in the devine. I also belive that what the devine is called and what it looks like has about as much baring on wither you get into heaven or not as choosing weather to go to the bathroom now, or in 2 minutes.

As you said. Don't put God into a box. He's God. God is everything, everything is God. End of that story.

I think that there are what one would say are, 'hardcore' religious types. You know, the ones that will take everything to an extreme literal sense in regards to their beliefs. While I can sort of respect that, it will lead to some serious conflicts with modern society and its almost deliberate blurring and twisting of contemporary issues.

Personally I wonder what makes a person a 'true' believer for any given belief system. Do you have to get full marks based on a system? Or perhaps the majority? Do you have to be strict to ones religious literature, or can you let some things slide / interpret them when needed? Hmm... so many things to consider, no wonder I do not do well with religions.

Please do not take this the wrong way. This is no means an attack on anyone or their beliefs, it is more just something I was pondering, and perhaps have been for a very, very long time. Personally I can respect people who live stringently in regards to their beliefs, but I fail to understand their thinking fully.

Belief, as I stated above, is irrelevant. Just aslong as you do what you think is best for everyone. And whats best for everyone is to get rid of idiots like that oke in the vid. He gets into heaven, and the rest of us can get on with working on getting into heaven ourselves.

 

[Necuno]

god is pirating games too ?

 

[OmegaFenix]

God they move on fast nowadays. I remember when the Power Rangers first came out, every body was "oh thats so satanic" then Pokemon, then Da Vinci Code, Golden Compas... BattleStar Galactica.... everytime some thing new comes out that doesn't fall into these peoples narrow zealous beliefs they condemn it. And to quote BSG "Its all happened before and it will happen again."

Each person that watches that video gives zealous dork over there more hits making him think people actually give a shit. Moral of the story... dont watch stupid people on YouTube, it encourages them.

 

[Necuno]

God they move on fast nowadays. I remember when the Power Rangers first came out, every body was "oh thats so satanic" then Pokemon, then Da Vinci Code, Golden Compas... BattleStar Galactica.... everytime some thing new comes out that doesn't fall into these peoples narrow zealous beliefs they condemn it. And to quote BSG "Its all happened before and it will happen again."

Each person that watches that video gives zealous dork over there more hits making him think people actually give a shit. Moral of the story... dont watch stupid people on YouTube, it encourages them.

not to forget about Liewe Heksie .... now that was a rough show, strictly R21...

 

[OmegaFenix]

not to forget about Liewe Heksie .... now that was a rough show, strictly R21...

"Ag Nee Liewe Donder Heksie, wat de fok het jy nou weer aan gevang" Blomie.

 

[shadowfox]

Nobody's ever accused him of being a fundamentalist? Then let me be the first. Bloody fanatic.

I supposed he missed the bit where Avatar is fiction.

Okay, a couple of problems with his rambling. First and foremost - paganism = satanism. Really? Say that in front of a pagan and see where that gets you.

Secondly, he's calling Eastern beliefs garbage. Idiot. Other than Christianity, Islam and a few others I could mention - none of them seem to preach that you need to go out and convert others - in other words, forcing people to see things YOUR way. I make a bit of a study of the Eastern religions, and to be honest, I like what I see.

I was raised as a Christian - one of the better choices I personally believed I made was dropping the religion, it freed me from a lot of unnecessary baggage.

Finally, on a less serious note - Necuno's post reminded me of this quote -

If you play the Windows installation CD backwards, you hear the voice of Satan. But if you play it forward, it installs Windows!!!

 

[Azimuth]

I supposed he missed the bit where Avatar is fiction.

That's irrelevant. The fact that it's promoting an objectionable ideology makes it satanic. Besides, we could call the bible fiction - would that make a difference?

Okay, a couple of problems with his rambling. First and foremost - paganism = satanism. Really? Say that in front of a pagan and see where that gets you.

In general, christianity (particularly fundamentalist christianity) teaches that anything that isn't christian is the work of Satan. And according to some websites, so is christian rock music. Seriously, though, there is simply no perceived difference between paganism and satanism, and it doesn't matter what pagans think. They're obviously deluding themselves, because they've been seduced by Satan. Et cetera.

Secondly, he's calling Eastern beliefs garbage. Idiot. Other than Christianity, Islam and a few others I could mention - none of them seem to preach that you need to go out and convert others - in other words, forcing people to see things YOUR way. I make a bit of a study of the Eastern religions, and to be honest, I like what I see.

The christian bible preaches rigorous monotheism, and a "one truth" ideology. Of course christians will denounce other religions. Getting all indignant about it - while understandable - is pointless. You're arguing against core doctrine here.

 

[shadowfox]

I'm not really arguing - I'm pointing out where I disagree with him. I don't bother arguing with Christians - specifically hardcore Christians.

In general, christianity (particularly fundamentalist christianity) teaches that anything that isn't christian is the work of Satan. And according to some websites, so is christian rock music. Seriously, though, there is simply no perceived difference between paganism and satanism, and it doesn't matter what pagans think. They're obviously deluding themselves, because they've been seduced by Satan. Et cetera.

This is based on perception - as you so aptly pointed out. And just because the Christians believe it and to them it's truth, that doesn't make it truth. But the long and short of it is that paganism and satanism are far removed from each other.

I could walk up to a Christian and say, for example - God doesn't exist. For them - it's blasphemy. For me - it would be truth. One man's truth is another mans lie.

The christian bible preaches rigorous monotheism, and a "one truth" ideology. Of course christians will denounce other religions. Getting all indignant about it - while understandable - is pointless. You're arguing against core doctrine here.

As does Islam, and as does Judaism. Getting indignant about it may be pointless, but it is my right if I'm faced with a situation where someone overrides my opinion with theirs, based simply on their beliefs.

 

[Azimuth]

This is based on perception - as you so aptly pointed out. And just because the Christians believe it and to them it's truth, that doesn't make it truth. But the long and short of it is that paganism and satanism are far removed from each other.

Oh, I completely agree with you.

As does Islam, and as does Judaism. Getting indignant about it may be pointless, but it is my right if I'm faced with a situation where someone overrides my opinion with theirs, based simply on their beliefs.

I think I've just gotten myself into too many pointless religious arguments to care anymore.

 

[Xero]

Jees !
I go out to lunch and I miss a religious debate sparked by the film Avatar ?!
Must be my lucky day

 

[Tinman]

One man's truth is another mans lie.

I do not disagree with your general argument, but this is a statement which I long ago vowed to take opposition to whenever I see it, which is too often sadly.

Something which is true is true regardless of whether someone believes it to be true or not. There is no subjectivity when it comes to truth. When somebody believes a state of affairs to be true, and that state of affair is not in fact true, then they are deluded, or have been mislead. It is really that simple.

The epistemological and even metaphysical implications of making truth subjective are CRAAAAAAZZZZZZZZY.

A nice example: Your watch is 5 minutes fast, leading you to believe that it is in fact 5 minutes earlier than it really is. The fact that you are able to go about your day, believing the time to be 5 minutes earlier than it actually is, does not change the fact that your time is wrong.

By the same token, in regards to whether or not there is a God, there is only one truth. This means that either religious people's beliefs are true, or atheists beliefs are true.

Unfortunately, because we have become so tired of debating the existence of God, we have retreated to a point which allows for both parties to continue with their belief systems intact, i.e. "One man's truth is another man’s lie".

I think that the more appropriate stance should be: "There is not enough empirical evidence at hand to establish which belief system is true." From here, you can take two reasonable routes:

A) I will continue to believe that God exists, citing that my belief is based on faith, i.e. my belief does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

B) Retreat to a point of agnosticism. i.e. there is not enough evidence at hand for me to choose a belief, so I will remain open minded, unit further evidence is presented.

 

[shadowfox]

I think that the more appropriate stance should be: "There is not enough empirical evidence at hand to establish which belief system is true." From here, you can take two reasonable routes:

A) I will continue to believe that God exists, citing that my belief is based on faith, i.e. my belief does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

B) Retreat to a point of agnosticism. i.e. there is not enough evidence at hand for me to choose a belief, so I will remain open minded, unit further evidence is presented.

I agree with you completely - the statement does perhaps oversimplify things.

But as with your example with the watch - you can undertake to prove whether the watch is in fact right or wrong. Perhaps not without expensive and complicated equipment - but the option remains - and you can come out the other side saying, "My watch is wrong - let's adjust." But the empirical and material proof is available.

With religion however, things become a little shady - and we're subjected to the two routes you laid out. "Truth" in this case rests with the individual - for the individual who follows A - B is a lie, and vice versa. There isn't evidence to prove or disprove either of the stances. In this case (only in this case, perhaps) the saying "One man's truth ..." holds, or at least that's my point of view.

And even there things have various shades of gray - if you look at my background, I used to be A, but now I'm B - but a variant, if you will; I actively rejected the belief engendered by option A - and find myself more willing to adopt the philosophies of say, Buddhism or Hinduism (or even Shinto, which doesn't even require you to be a believer in the religion).

Where religion is concerned, the truth is always going to be subjective.

 

[Tinman]

I agree with you completely - the statement does perhaps oversimplify things.

But as with your example with the watch - you can undertake to prove whether the watch is in fact right or wrong. Perhaps not without expensive and complicated equipment - but the option remains - and you can come out the other side saying, "My watch is wrong - let's adjust." But the empirical and material proof is available.

With religion however, things become a little shady - and we're subjected to the two routes you laid out. "Truth" in this case rests with the individual - for the individual who follows A - B is a lie, and vice versa. There isn't evidence to prove or disprove either of the stances. In this case (only in this case, perhaps) the saying "One man's truth ..." holds, or at least that's my point of view.

And even there things have various shades of gray - if you look at my background, I used to be A, but now I'm B - but a variant, if you will; I actively rejected the belief engendered by option A - and find myself more willing to adopt the philosophies of say, Buddhism or Hinduism (or even Shinto, which doesn't even require you to be a believer in the religion).

Where religion is concerned, the truth is always going to be subjective.

Hmmm.

Back to the watch analogy.

Imagine we lost track of true time. The atomic clocks stopped, the world was EMPd etc. It would become impossible to determine true time. This does not mean that time would all of a sudden become subjective.

Just because there is no emperical evidence on hand to prove something, does not mean that belief in the matter defaults to subjectivity.

Also, neither of my stances need to be proved, they are not really asserting anything.

A) is saying that as a matter of preference I will choose to believe in God.
B) is saying I don't have enough evidence, and reserve judgement.

There are no shades of grey in this argument. Either there does exist an entity which subscribes to our description of God, or there does not. Obviously the goal posts shift as your understanding of God does, but that is neither here nor there in this argument.

Whether or not we can ever know the truth is a different story, and is not really relevant to whether God does or does not exist, nor is it relevent to the nature of truth.

P.S

This thread really has put me behind on my work today

 

[Neo]

Truth is truth. There is no lie that is truth and there is no truth that is a lie. It's cut-and-dry and the truth is NOT a subjective thing. People have made truth "subjective" in order to disguise the fact that they don't know what the truth really is themselves.

As for the topic as a whole: I thought it was this board's policy to not entertain these kinds of discussions as it revolves around religion and I honestly do not like the idea of non-Christians discussing the "possibilities" of God....so it is actually offensive already to at least one person, me.

The topic is based on a person who gave his own opinion on something which was probably meant to cause debate with the hopes, more than likely, that people will start bashing anyone and everyone who has and believes in strong Christian foundation.

Tinman....why is this topic being entertained? It's a gaming forum...let's stick to that? The last time I mentioned why a game like Dante's Inferno was basically the worst game to be released yet based on my Christian World view, I was told to never comment or steer a topic in that direction again, yet an entire thread was started in that direction. I'm sure we don't allow double standards on here.

 

[tehNihilist]

Something which is true is true regardless of whether someone believes it to be true or not. There is no subjectivity when it comes to truth. When somebody believes a state of affairs to be true, and that state of affair is not in fact true, then they are deluded, or have been mislead. It is really that simple.

By the same token, in regards to whether or not there is a God, there is only one truth. This means that either religious people's beliefs are true, or atheists beliefs are true.

Unfortunately, because we have become so tired of debating the existence of God, we have retreated to a point which allows for both parties to continue with their belief systems intact, i.e. "One man's truth is another man’s lie".

I think that the more appropriate stance should be: "There is not enough empirical evidence at hand to establish which belief system is true." From here, you can take two reasonable routes:

A) I will continue to believe that God exists, citing that my belief is based on faith, i.e. my belief does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

B) Retreat to a point of agnosticism. i.e. there is not enough evidence at hand for me to choose a belief, so I will remain open minded, unit further evidence is presented.

That feels like a serious contradiction unless I am not understanding something.

First you say there is only ONE truth, and regardless of opinion / views / whatever there is only one. Then you say in regards to religion / god that there are two, arising from lack of evidence either way. Now, are there not many, many things in this world subject to similar lack of evidence leading to a very similar conclusion? Truth being one of the largest offenders.

There are numerous things in this life that are certainly polar in their ways (although sometimes I am not so certain), but there are just as many that are vague by so many definitions. Perhaps if we knew everything, and could take all of it into account we could perhaps arrive at some kind of Ultimate Truth when confronted by these questions. Sadly we are clearly not, and even if we were, I am not confident that there is a solid truth to such things.

Anyways, these kinds of ideas will go around in circles for all eternity at this rate. People have been considering such things for as long as there has been consciousness. Thinking like this can drive a person crazy, which I am often prone to, but I never ever reach a solid conclusion or the ONE Truth.


*Neo I think as long as the conversation remains clean there is no issue. People will take offense to numerous things. Like I could take offense to your offense, but that is counterproductive. As soon as people starting bashing each other then lock this thread down. And sure this is a gaming forum, but this is the "Off Topic" page. I am finding all the views in this interesting, like I stated initially, even the views contained in the video.

**Thinking some more on this thread, it may very well regress considering the nature of people. Perhaps you may be correct Neo. We should stay away from any religious discussions on the forum as a whole.

 

[Xero]

I tend to disagree slightly
Over the course of human development men have bled, died and waged wars for what they believed in
This absolute belief in something,is so overwhelming in certain instanes that it gives rise to a specific type of truth, subjective Idealism

So the question would then be, if one believes in something so completely , so utterly that it becomes a part of one's identity, does that not make this concept, supported or unsupported by common or popular belief true for that specific individual ?
History tells us that it does

 

[tpex]

/wonders if he should call some myBB PD backup

 

[Necuno]

/wonders if he should call some myBB PD backup

/reports in

/gets all religion is bs baton and shield

/goes to the roit

 

[tehNihilist]

If one solely used logical thinking you may be able to say something that is considered subjective, has only one Truth. However there are different kinds of thinking, and that needs to be taken into account - Thinking such as emotive thinking. Utilizing just one can lead to a very stagnant view of things.

A simple example would be that one persons absolute love can easily be another persons dislike. Art is a good example. While some art may technically be superior it does not detract from that fact that others may prefer naive art. There is no one truth to be had there, besides, maybe the only truth there is is that truth can often be subjective? All of this largely stems from emotive thinking, which has an enormous role in human thinking, whether we like it or not.

And I pretty much agree with you Xero, and that is what I am trying to say as well

And around we keep going - Mental ping-pong, where the ball never truly drops and there is no score to be kept.

 

[Raven Gold]

One thing to remeber, and theres various evidence for this. The modern Bible we know, love and hate today is at the least 50% fabrication by the Catholic Church leaders during the middle ages. Hell, the 1st 5 of the commandments aren't even supposed to be there. If you read between the lines in the bible, and look at various translations, you'de notice alot of discrepincies and misunderstandings.

The only Christian sect today thats still somewhat uncorrupted are the Nostic groups. They truely preach about a God that doesn't care what you do, who you worship, where you do it, only why you do it, because it's truth to you.

The Orthodox Christian teachings are a hell of a lot closer to the devil than anything if you look at it closely. There view of "God" is one that punishes people because they have never been given reason and conviction to belive in him. I say thats not a God, thats a tyrant.