Non-believers don’t rally together in their non-belief unless they’re at a social even and a theological debate ensues. Why would they? It’s the same as the old ‘anarchist convention’ metaphor, it defeats their purpose. Non-believers have better things to do, like MUBI, or make fun of FOX News, or read Richard Dawkins books.
christianity, judaism and islam – the abrahamaic religions have this problem of interpreting their myths literally and this has led to extremism and bloodshed throughout history
There was just a big “Reason Rally” in Washington D.C. that was basically a big social gathering of non-believers. They got together and had a good time in the rain.
Ruby, it’s not just those three religions that have the problem of interpreting their myths literally. The real issue with them is that christianity and islam have achieved global dominance.
Non believers say they don’t base their being around something that cannot be proven with certainty, but they all behave as if they do.
Really? How does anyone base their being around their certainty that Zeus doesn’t exist. Give me a single example.
I don’t think you read my sentance the way I meant it to be read. I wasn’t saying that non believers base their being around the certainty of the non existance of something. I’m saying that non believers do base their being around things that cannot be proven with certainty.
Talk about a can of worms.
We can talk about that too. I’m allowing for the topics to be broad :)
i don’t think it’s going to end until one takes over all of them. the really sad part is that its an extremely minute radically militant group of each of these traditions that are causing the innocent bloodshed of millions all over the world.
…now how does this affect your perspective of cinema?
How would people feel if you told them you were never baptised?
right, i don’t conflate all christians with fundamentalists who interpret the bible word for word, likewise islam and judaism. but it is a serious problem historically and obviously very much still with us today
i do not know how this is to be resolved. i had hoped science would lead us all to enlightenment but it doesn’t look like that’s happening any time soon lol. the sad part is that all the major religions are saying the same thing: love thy neighbor. but they are interpreting this to only include their own ‘tribe’, racial, religious, etc. and everyone else is the dreaded ‘other’, heathens who must be destroyed. this tribalism is what we have to get beyond
The religion of Judaism is generally misogynistic, yet the female also holds the power to descend the religion (one is only born jewish from a jewish mother, not father). Likewise, it is an extremely homophobic and intolerant religion when it comes to same-sex lovers, yet allows open homosexuals into Rabbinical school. What is to be made of these contradictions? Likewise, most Jewish traditions allow for divorce and abortion (the fetus is viewed as a type of parasite, or tumor according to ‘sacred documents’ until the head crowns), while the other Abrahamic religions allow neither of these (traditionally).
I’m saying that non believers do base their being around things that cannot be proven with certainty.
Well, nothing can be proven with that level of certainty. So that particular concept of certainty is rather useless. But I do have the same level of certainty that your god doesn’t exist as I have in my belief that you are not really a magic pink unicorn that can type.
Risselada, here’re a couple of thoughts. We are all practiced in the suspension of disbelief when we watch a film or read a novel. We know that it is fiction, and we usually know who the author(s) were. But not always—who was Homer? I think most of what gets called religion is very like these kinds of fictions except in two regards. First, religions are generally participatory with various ritual practices. Second, and more interestingly, religions involve the permanent suspension of disbelief. For some religions, we know who the authors were—Joseph Smith creating Mormonism. But for many religions, the authors, like Homer, have disappeared into the mists of time.
Suspension of disbelief in a piece of literature that is presented as fiction would be a requirement. But in the case of a religious text like the Bible it is presented in a lot of different forms, but mostly non-fiction. So I don’t think suspension of disbelief would be appropriate. What it’s asking for is belief of a telling of extraodinary events told by real people.
I’m not sure whatyou mean about the authors disappearing. What do you know about Joseph Smith that you don’t know about Moses or Paul or other authors of parts of the Bible that make him different?
Secondly, as to your question in the OP about meaning and purpose and life, why would the opinion of some other kind of creature or entity (even a supernatural one like a god) make a bit of difference? If somebody or some thing or some non-thing (whatever that would mean) came along and said “hey bub, here’s the real purpose of your life”, I wouldn’t care what that thing is, I’d only be interested in the argument, and I’m not about to accept an argument that I disagree with. Whether a god or not, it wouldn’t make a difference.
My specific point was by what authority do you agree with or disagree with an argument? Why would you on your own have authority to make that decision over another entity? If the entity that you were arguing with was the entity that was solely responsible for your design and creation, you would have no authority to disagree with it, even if it didn’t seem to make sense to you because of that one piece of knowledge.
well, all of those religions are fiercely patriarchal. this is another issue entirely. i left the church when i reached the age of reason but i have no qualms with people who wish to practice their religion as long as they aren’t forcing it down my throat or trying to make it the law of the land.
art is my religion and we’re very happy together so i’ll leave u all to it. i have a naked island to visit :)
What do you know about Joseph Smith that you don’t know about Moses or Paul or other authors of parts of the Bible that make him different?
Smith’s bullshit is very well documented by multiple sources. Please, let’s stop equating religion with history and science.
We know a lot about Smith’s various revisions over time, his being taken to court, and his falling out with people who came to see him as a fraudulent manipulator. In other words, we have accounts from people who are not promoting his religion.
Well, if it turned out that I have been created by something that just wanted to eat me for dinner, I might be powerless to stop the plan, but I’ll never agree that that is my purpose.
I’m interested if there are any followers of Baha’i on MUBI. How do you feel that most view your religion as ‘new-age mumbo jumbo’ rather than a valid established set of beliefs and worship?
Non-believers, how do you feel about religion portrayed in cinema? Do you scoff at it, take it for what it is (art), contemplate any of the teachings, avoid it, what?
I feel that my beliefs in human nature do stem from God.
Do you mean you believe what you believe about human nature because of what the Bible says? That’s not the case for me. I guess, part of my understanding and belief about human nature comes from the Bible, but not all of it. In other words, I’m not blindly accepting what the Bible says about human nature.
I find it commendable to some extent that you try your best to place yourself entirely within the worldview of the film while watching it and to abandon your own, but personally I find that impossible to do.
Later you say you can enjoy films with a different worldview from your own, so I’m wondering what you mean here.
I’ll check on your recent film list.
what are u talking about, brentos? the left behind series with kirk cameron? that’s what passed for acceptable movie viewing in the church i was raised in. do u mean that horror show the passion of the christ? or something like dreyer’s ordet? i loved mother joan of the angels btw. i respect religious ecstasy lol
What about stuff like The Last Temptation of Christ, or A Serious Man, or Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter…Spring, The Gospel According to St. Matthew, Dreyer’s Joan of Arc or Days of Wrath, Fanny and Alexander etc.
Or i could mean the other films, too. If you really wanna watch them. I know that The Passion was very big in my church when it came out, my parents (who are pretty religious) hated it though. The Last Temptation was protested by millions, but it remains one of my father’s favorites.
I’m a non-believer, but i have a deep fascination with religion, so i seek out these films—i even double majored in religion for my undergrad (talk about religious fanatics, sit in on a Theology course at a University close to you, fuck lol)—but I’m wondering how other non-believers or followers of organized/established world religions view these types of films
Jerry said, And so do you. I can name a hundred gods that you dismiss just as casually: Zeus, Loki, Coyote…well, you get my point.
I don’t believe in these gods, but I don’t casually dismiss them, either. Religious beliefs have to be meaningful to the individual, and to be meaningful they have help people understand their lives and how to live their lives. They also have to genuinely believe in god(s) and the tenets of their faith. I may strongly disagree with these beliefs, but I also respect their beliefs as well—i.e., they have a right to believe these things, and I also respect genuine faith and piety.
i enjoyed the last temptation of christ perhaps more because it was heavily criticized by the church and i was in my turning away phase. i should watch it again sometime. the main thing that made a huge impression on me was: jesus was a crossmaker. btw i still think jesus was a great guy who would today be called a terrorist and crucified once again. it’s a pity so many churches have so perverted what he actually said. i also loved the gospel according to saint matthew, perhaps the most beautiful jesus film i have seen, made of course by an openly gay communist. spring summer fall winter…spring i had problems with as it seemed to equate women with evil, strangely a much more common trope of the western religions, tho i haven’t seen that much buddhist cinema, i confess. fanny and alexander is one of my favorite films. in what way is it religious? more the opposite i’d say. joan of arc is magnificent, an epic. but i don’t forget that shakespeare referred to her as the french whore. i haven’t seen a serious man but i am interested in the coens work generally. i am also somewhat fascinated by world religions, their influence and origins. and i believe that all are equally valid
i look forward to seeing day of wrath and ordet soon.
>>The religion of Judaism is generally misogynistic<<
This is simply untrue, Brentos, unless you’re refering to extreme sects (of which you could easily cite other religions as well) or the patriarchy common to to most traditional cultures. In fact, Judaism celebrates its founding mothers and a number of other Biblical heroines. With modernity, female Rabbis are now common. Let’s not forget that Israel was one of the first countries to elect a female head of state.
It is traditionally misogynistic and patriarchal, as all Abrahamic traditions are, but is now less so than the rest. It also features many heroines where the Qur’an and Christian Bible lack those. I meant in terms of orthodoxy, not modernity, so no offense was meant there.
fanny and alexander is one of my favorite films. in what way is it religious? more the opposite i’d say.
I wouldn’t say it is the opposite; it certainly does criticize religion, hence the main antagonist of the film being a bishop, however the presence of religion in the film, given Bergman’s filmography as well, does show that he is making a specific point, or trying to open the mind of the viewers to certain aspects of Christianity. There are other Bergman films that have a less sinister portrayal such as The Seventh Seal and The Virgin Spring. These films, while not a celebration of religion, do open up the philosophies behind Christianity to a more philosophical thought while never dismissing them entirely. The questioning of one’s faith is just as important as the faith itself, how else would one ‘grow with God’?
isn’t all of bergman a profound meditation on the absence of god?
u know that his father was a minister? he claimed to have lost his faith at age 8. it was a huge theme for him
None taken. And yes, In the historic context of the three Abrahamic religions, they share the male dominated features of most power structures of the times.
Yes, which is why so many of his films feature religious aspects. The film doesn’t have to be pro-religion to be a religious film, in my opinion. A Serious Man would be a fine example of this, the film isn’t necessarily pro-Judaism, but it plays a central role in the film (as it is loosely based off the Book of Job).
Bergman’s father was Lutheran if i’m not mistaken, yet many of his films deal with Catholicism, not Protestantism. I wonder why that is…
well inasmuch as religion was a huge part of many peoples’ lives in the past it enters into many films
actually lutheranism and catholicism aren’t as different as u might think. my grandparents were lutheran and the forms of the service are very similar. lutherans were the first branch of protestantism after all. same is true of anglicanism which we call episcopalian. now there’s a fascinating story: a whole country following a state religion created only so that a king could be divorced. an english friend of mine asked me if we celebrate pancake day here. i was confused until i realized he meant shrove tuesday before lent. which they are still celebrating some 500 years after leaving the catholic church <—sorry, i get a bit carried away with this kind of trivia which may be of interest to no one but me
well insomuch as religion was a huge part of many peoples’ lives in the past it enters into many films
Indeed! As with all other artistic mediums (but you know that :P )
actually lutheranism and catholicism aren’t as different as u might think.
Certainly they are not! Yes Anglicism/Episcopalian is an interesting story. The evolution of protestantism and its various denominations is a fascinating subject!
How does this lot feel about religious documentaries? Such as Jesus Camp, Deliver Us From Evil, Hell House, etc. or even reality television a la Sisterwives?
Personally, Jesus Camp was sickening; manipulation of the mind of a child is just as perverse as abusing their bodies, it disgusts me. I have not talked to any religious people about this film, and of course i understand it documents a small, radical and fundamental percentage.