What was the message of this movie?

>muh gommunism 😀
A lifetime of foreign policy will directly lead to your grand-kids not being white. But hey, at least you can buy one of those Frick Communism lighters, right?

>christo-fascist is actually a closeted lefty
lmao

>south american immigrants invade your border thanks to the foreign policy to installed decades earlier
>hmm must be the gommunism xD

Yeah, man surely Allende sent the hundreds of thousands of immigrants now coveting your daddy's blue collar job and not the far right moron (specialized in kidnapping and murdering dissidents) your government installed.

You wanna prove me wrong so bad but you have to brag about killing commies to impress the polcucks in the thread. This is why you have hundreds of thousands of migrants invading your border.

The thing is, an "infinite growth" of population is moronic. No country can sustain it. The whole "low birth rate = BRING IN MORE AFRICANS" argument is moronic. Population needs to shrink before it can grow again, this has been a thing in many periods during history

>society is a disintegrating shitshow everyone universally acknowledges is declining in some way
serious question has there ever been a period in history where morons weren't loudly exclaiming that society is collapsing

>society is a disintegrating shitshow everyone universally acknowledges is declining in some way
serious question has there ever been a period in history where morons weren't loudly exclaiming that society is collapsing

>dude giving kids hormone injections is totally normal! cooperations running the government is based! this is all ok! nobody being able to afford property and politics descending into a screeching pit of irreconcilable views is awesome!

>utterly IQ mogged
I miss when religiousgays could at least form a proper sentence.

>how DARE you imply i would let my daughter be raped just by giving into the rapist demands??
>and EVEN if i did i wouldn't be culpable!!!

>i will rape your child unless you apostatize
>it won't be my fault anyway so no 🙂
Why can't you just admit your larp is more important than your own children? At least be honest with yourself.

If you allow your child to be raped because the alternative is having to say God is bad then I don't see why God won't send you to hell himself. Hell, he was probably testing you and you failed miserably, both in the abstract and in a couple of years when you eventually allow your daughter to be raped just to prove me wrong.

you realise everyone else ITT can see how incapable you are of engaging in a logical argument lmao? answer the question honestly and stop blatantly evading it.
>my fault because I threatened you
no, your fault because the entire situation revolves around your wilful actions and nobody else’s. it’s crazy how dumb people can’t make leaps of logic like this. actually explain to me how one persons choice is conditioned on another person doing what they tell them to? it isn’t. it’s stockholm syndrome thinking. it doesn’t matter how extreme your moronic analogy gets, may as well say nuking the planet or eating a baby, this fact of culpability doesn’t change

i’m just amazed at how people with a “smart” self concept like yourself can’t into basic moral reasoning when it comes down to it. you can basically manage polemic and emotionally charged nonsense based on your own preexisting assumptions. if someone actually reduces a moral debate to a syllogism you just evade it

this isn’t anything to do with politics it’s a basic fricking principle of every code of law in existence. in theory everyone agrees and consents to this but apparently morons dispute it.

So the logical conclusion to this way of thinking is that Rodriguez should stay put and watch as Christians are tortured and murdered every day

>Stepping on the image, something everyone knows is blasphemous, is rejection of faith no matter how much you cope about it.

Your faith is greater than any material object. It’s your pride that makes you think stepping on an image is blasphemy.

Steadfastness in the face of torture/death is not pride. Do you think the priests were getting a self-satisfied kick out of being slowly drowned for refusing to apostatize?

Steadfastness in the face of OTHERS being tortured, not quite the virtue

Would Christ advise you to save those people and then repent and seek His forgiveness? I think so

>If you shot a rapist in the head to save a woman or killed a guy in genuine self-defense you wouldn't even need to go to confession.
You definitely would, you fricking larper. You can't even jerk off without confessing.

>Masturbation is an action against the order of sexuality, so it's a sin.
Allowing others to be tortured for your pride is also a sin, you fricking dummy.

That analogy makes no sense.

You absolutely do save her. That situation doesnt entail you abandoning your faith. Im not the guy you originally replied to btw. The situation would make sense if the rapist said he would stop if you deny God but how could you trust he would actually do that? Its a stupid analogy is all im saying.

I would absolutely kill someone to save another (depending on context). There has been theological discussions about this for centuries and you obviously thought you were the first to think about it. Murder is never moral but it is also a symptom of a fallen world. To deny God is the ultimate form of murder because you have a nice day in the process.

Semantics aside, it isnt that hard to understand. Have you heard churches come out and denouce wars? No, because it isnt incompatible with their belief system. Thats not to say every war is moral or the actions of soldiers is moral but a man fighting in a war is fighting because of the threat imposed by the enemy. The church doesnt ask the public to let themselves be walked over. It asks them to stand by their beliefs.

the torture and death of others which you are in a position to stop

*mystical body of christ

No, does who adheres to the teachings of the modernist and masonic Vatican II church are schismatics but that's another topic.

Pope Leo XIII
>But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith. SATIS COGNITUM

The idea that god wouldn't understand the necessity of the action says more about Christians than about god.

I would step on a meaningless material object to save a bunch of people from torture, yes. Doesn't matter how virtuous you wanna pretend the opposite is, anything other than that is an admittance of pride, of sin.

Right, but you're not supposed to subsidize that suffering onto others just so you can stay square with God.

Pretty funny that a religiousgay would conjure up army imagery to make up his point, as if giving up his pride to help others is as difficult as being fired upon. You people are so fricking narcissistic is ridiculous.

I know stopping unnecessary torture is far more virtuous than being a prideful moron. Jesus knows it too. It's only the "real" Christians who have a problem with that straightforward interpretation of Jesus's teachings.

This is what Christgays don't get, and will never get it: you can memorize as many passages you want and you can smugly claim to be a follower of Jesus, but you can never apply his teachings onto the real world without having to apply thousands of years worth of bureaucracy so you don't end up looking bad.

>So Jesus would deny his own father according to you?
Why do you people always end up comparing yourselves to Jesus Christ? Holy shit, you gays are the most narcissistic people on the planet.

>I means to become more Christ like
That doesn't mean you get to compare yourself to Jesus just because you've already decide to let your daughter be raped in the future.

see

>I means to become more Christ like
That doesn't mean you get to compare yourself to Jesus just because you've already decide to let your daughter be raped in the future.

Right, you cannot deny yourself. Christians will ultimately be remade in the image of Christ become one with God. Christ is the prism through which man and God is reunited. Imagine Christ being a doorway into heaven because he has walked both world being both flesh and God.

since you asked

Matthew 10:28
Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Revelation 2:10
Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to cast some of you into prison, so that you will be tested, and you will have tribulation for ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.

Matthew 16:24-25
Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.

Why is it your sin to deny the whims of evil people? Would you join the Nazis during WW2 because they threatened your your family? Your analogy makes no sense because you are constantly saying it is your responsibility other than the men committing the evil act.

>if you leave me, i’ll kill myself
you’re now a horrible person for breaking up with that person if they do it, since you seem to believe someone else’s unconditioned choice is dependent on your actions because they say so

lmao who the frick do you think you’re fooling here? do you actually think inventing imaginary conditions on a hypothetical scenario is an argument?
>what if someone conditioned their choice on your actions
becomes
>YEAH BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MADE UP HISTORY I INVENTED FOR THAT SCENARIO WHERE YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE
like you can’t be serious holy shit. answer the fricking question

or you admit you are incapable of arguing based on logic and interpret the world through random fantasies you can alter at will. like how the hell are you defending what you did there?
>someone says he will detonate a bomb in public unless the government concedes X demand, who is morally culpable for the deaths?
>BUT WHAT IF THE GOVERNMENT IS NAZI AND EVIL AND THE DEATHS OF THE PEOPLE CREATE A BETTER OUTCOME BECAUSE IT INSPIRES REBELLION??
none of that shit is morally relevant to the premise. someone is asking you if the person doing an action is culpable, or the person they are arbitrarily conditioning their action on. if someone is conditioning their life ending on you choosing to continue supporting them that is not your moral culpability at all. it’s their decision entirely and a psychological conceit they are using to control your actions by shifting blame and responsibility for their choices. I don’t argue in many circumstances it might be more complicated, but it’s an analogy to demonstrate how liability works

oh ok, you either don’t understand what an analogy is (you’re moronic) or you are trying to evade the central premise by making it all about the analogy. so i’ll just be plain:

if someone arbitrarily conditions an action on the demands they make of someone else, even though that action is entirely their own voluntary choice and there is no material connection between their demands of the third party and their choice to do the action, who is morally culpable, them or the person they have randomly decided their behaviour is conditioned on?

>ignores the clearly stated premise
>hyper focuses on minor element
I made it extremely plain. Do me a favour and show everyone ITT how low IQ you are and ignore it again:

>if someone arbitrarily conditions an action on the demands they make of someone else, even though that action is entirely their own voluntary choice and there is no material connection between their demands of the third party and their choice to do the action, who is morally culpable, them or the person they have randomly decided their behaviour is conditioned on?

go on, show us all how stupid and dishonest you are and fail to address the argument

that isn’t an analogy. holy frick you don’t know what an analogy is lmfao ahhahahhah

for future reference so you don’t embarrass yourself, it’s when you compare a premise to an *analogous* scenario which embodies the logic of that premise. in the previous post I posted only the premise, which you ignored because you’re too dumb to engage with it. not an analogy

don’t care, i’ve proved how dumb you are. i’d rather be angry than moronic

>say you never gave in

It isnt prideful to not allow yourself to be swayed by evil men. Are you saying evil men are honest and trustworthy and keep their word? It is not your responsibility and every political system and belief system that survives today did so because they werent swayed in their convictions.

>It is when your decision to keep your pride justifies the torture of others.

Who is doing the torturing? Im sure the nazis had fun making israelites deny their heritage before they killed them. A roman would feel victorious in getting a christian to denounce God. They would probably say the same thing you are; abandon your pride and let us decide what you believe.

I dont believe so. I will deal with the consequences of that decision but i will not for one second believe that abandoning your faith is ever justified. Implicit in these questions is the idea that God is a concept whereas i believe that God is life itself. We have a totally different in our heads of just what we are abandoning when making this decision.

Doesnt mean i have to agree with you. God be with you.

Maybe. Since the only person you have to answer to is yourself, your obviously find it much easier to absolve yourself.

It seems you want to be the 'superior' christian even though you dont know what that entails. You cannot control the world and never will. Sometimes you have to let go. I hope you never have to face that.

I never conceded anything. I would not abandon my faith for any of your scenarios. You seem to know what Jesus would think of that. All power to you if you think thats evil but judgement will never come from you and you will never be right about anything since you have no belief system to begin with.

Plenty of quotes from Jesus that indicate the exact opposite, actually. You've been brainwashed by your local parish.

>Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.
Ah shit I forgot that the movie Silence, does not take place in 17th century Japan, but in Jerusalem around the time of crucifixion of Jesus. And I forgot that the main character isn't 17th century jesuit priest Rodriguez, but Jesus or one of his disciples.
Look christlarp poster you must understand that looking up random quotes from bible will not make others respect you and it will not make you into real christian, in fact putting words into God's mouth is considered pretty sinful (by which I mean using random ass Bible quotes to support your position in argument completely unrelated to the situation in Bible). So just stop doing it. Quoting Bible does not mean you understand it, in fact it proves the opposite.

Not more laughable than your larping.

so yes, god would demand i let this suffering happen rather deny him.

Yes, it is the same semitic god that murdered every single innocent first born child in a country to make a point.