Why do Protestants hate the Orthodox Church so much? I can understand that they're still pissy we didn't let king bong get a divorce but wtf did the Orthodox Church do to them?
For the same reason Catholics hate the Orthodox, Protestantism is still ultimately a split off of western European Catholic culture of the time, even if it was mostly in reaction to it.
Protestants correctly point out the problems with the roman catholic church (a heresy of orthodoxy) but come to the wrong conclusion (create infinite new heresies) instead of rejoining the original church.
The priest protagonist felt really ineffectual in Calvary, he just kinda stands around and takes abuse. The pistol in the bar scene was one of the few times he came alive and acted out a true resignation of his corporeal life while not just being a wet sop.
>he just kinda stands around and takes abuse
That's the whole point, numbnuts. He represents Christ, allowing the townspeople to take out their anger on him even though he didn't deserve it, and ultimately giving his life for their sake as well, even though he was innocent.
>The priest protagonist felt really ineffectual in Calvary
The film goes out of its way to show you an ineffectual priest in comparison to him, though. He didn't apologize for himself or his beliefs, he carried himself with dignity throughout the whole movie.
Because Protestants hate beauty and art. Catholics and Orthodoxs recognized that art very much has a place in faith which has lead to some of the greatest works of art known to man. The Statue of David, The Last Supper, The Sistne Chaple.
Protestants hate art. They hate everything except Jesus because their curroption of the Testament tells their followers that Jesus is the only being they are allowed to show love for. Despite the fact that throughout Christ life, he taught the exact opposite, that beauty is to be admired, be it ones soul, and gifts, and love is to be shared.
>Catholics and Orthodoxs recognized that art very much has a place in faith which has lead to some of the greatest works of art known to man. The Statue of David, The Last Supper, The Sistne Chaple.
Yeah I'm sure the entire system of tithing and priests leaving their property to the church, making it immensely wealthy, has nothing to do with the fact the Catholics have great art.
They do have the best art but this is more of a "we are obscenely rich and mean to show it" than it is a public service.
>They do have the best art but this is more of a "we are obscenely rich and mean to show it" than it is a public service. >Churches, monasteries and chapels are not public places that are beautified for the glory of God and the church-going public to enjoy
small brained take
anon, i don't even think the clergy believes in God. it's all so obviously false. but i am a cynic.
history is filled with Popes that were cynics, liars, thieves, adulterers, and worse. you need to take off the rose glasses and realize the Catholic church have been operated by knaves since it's inception.
>Churches, monasteries and chapels are not public places that are beautified for the glory of God
Jesus and Paul didn't preach in extravagant buildings surrounded by gold, why should we?
This makes no sense because the construction of the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem as described in Exodus and 1 Kings involved elaborate craftsmanship and valuable materials, commanded by God as a dwelling place for His presence among His people.
These were not just lavish projects but were rich in symbolism, plus its points to the beauty and holiness of God. Plus, Jesus and Paul didn’t condemn beauty or art in worship either, so this doesn’t make sense. The use of beautiful and precious materials in worship spaces can be seen as an offering of their best to God, in gratitude for His supreme gift of Himself. Can you also see that art can be catechetical tools? especially in times and places where literacy was not widespread.
In way, it shows how far Christian’s have come from a humble background to a collective force in converting the world.
>This makes no sense because the construction of the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem as described in Exodus and 1 Kings involved elaborate craftsmanship and valuable materials, commanded by God as a dwelling place for His presence among His people.
God doesn't dwell in a temple anymore, he dwells within all Christians. A Church isn't a building of gold, it is a Christian community, regardless of whether they meet in a field or a basement.
>In way, it shows how far Christian’s have come from a humble background to a collective force in converting the world.
It shows how Catholics have became corrupt and do not follow the example of Jesus.
1 month ago
Anonymous
The Church wholeheartedly agrees that God dwells within Christians through the Holy Spirit. The Catechism states this: “The Holy Spirit... makes the Church 'the temple of the living God'..." (CCC 797).
And yeah, the Church isn’t just gold, this aligns with Catholic teaching that the Church is fundamentally the People of God, the Body of Christ. It’s just that the Catholic view just holds that physical churches—buildings designated for worship—have significant value. While God does not *need* a physical dwelling and is not confined to any place, sacred spaces are set apart for public worship, the celebration of the sacraments, and communal gathering. These spaces are signs of the Church's visible presence in the world and serve as focal points for the faith. Beauty in sacred art and architecture is more than mere decoration; it's a form of catechesis and an invitation to encounter the divine. Beautiful churches draw the mind and heart to God, reflecting the glory of creation and the Creator. The CCC notes, "To the extent that they [sacred images] lead us to him, they are worthy of veneration" (CCC 2132).
The use of gold, fine art, and architecture in churches is not for the sake of opulence but is meant to honor God and reflect the beauty of His creation. It's a way of offering the best of human creativity to God, inspired by the example of the Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple in the Old Testament, liturgy mass, and all kinds of ceremonies. Catholics value the scarce.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>It’s just that the Catholic view just holds that physical churches—buildings designated for worship—have significant value.
Jesus didn't, though. >These spaces are signs of the Church's visible presence in the world
Shouldn't you be showing your presence through charity? How does a golden throne for the Pope help anyone? >The use of gold, fine art, and architecture in churches is not for the sake of opulence but is meant to honor God and reflect the beauty of His creation.
There's beauty in a lake or a forest, and you don't need to spend millions to make those.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Jesus didn’t value one over the other really, but Jesus did value the scarce is what i’m saying - and what Catholics believe.
Within the context of Jesus' life and teachings, He recognized and valued physical spaces dedicated to worship, while also emphasizing the importance of the heart's posture in worship. I see Jesus' actions and teachings in the Temple in Jerusalem indicate that He valued it as a place for prayer and worship. For instance, when He cleansed the Temple driving out those who were buying and selling, He quoted the Old Testament, saying, "My house shall be called a house of prayer" (Matthew 21:13, referencing Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11). This act reflects His concern for the Temple's role as a sacred space for genuine worship. Jesus also frequently taught in synagogues, which were established religious gathering places for teaching and prayer within israeli communities.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Within the context of Jesus' life and teachings, He recognized and valued physical spaces dedicated to worship, while also emphasizing the importance of the heart's posture in worship.
No he didn't.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>There will not be one stone upon another that will not be thrown down
Jesus has the coolest lines.
1 month ago
Anonymous
That’s doesn't dismiss the kind of communal worship i’m talking about. It’s important to recognize that while Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple, which signals the impermanence of physical structures, this doesn’t not necessarily devalue sacred spaces for worship, like the Churches. Jesus emphasizes a transition towards worship that is not confined to any location but is "in spirit and truth" (John 4:23-24). His teachings critique the misplaced priorities that sometimes accompanied Temple worship, such as hypocrisy or neglect of justice, mercy, and faithfulness, rather than the concept of sacred space itself.
His ministry demonstrated that while the essence of worship transcends physical locations, gathering places for worship still hold value for communal expression and practice of faith. The prophecy underscores the temporal nature of physical buildings and redirects focus towards the enduring and pervasive kingdom of God, which is not limited by physical boundaries, but that perspective doesn't dismiss the role of communal worship spaces but places them within a broader theological context.
To illustrate that Jesus valued sacred things and spaces, including their role in worship and religious life, you can refer to His respect and use of the Temple in Jerusalem, which was the central sacred space for israeli worship. Here’s a biblical quote that showcases Jesus’ engagement with and valuation of sacred spaces:
Luke 19:45-46 - “And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold, saying to them, ‘It is written, "My house shall be a house of prayer," but you have made it a den of robbers.’”
Jesus here is actively involved in ensuring the sanctity of the Temple is respected, affirming its intended purpose as a house of prayer. His actions and words underscore a deep respect for the Temple as a sacred space.
1 month ago
Anonymous
based scholar post
1 month ago
Anonymous
based scholar post
It's interesting that you cut off right when you were about to refute your own point.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Because it’smetaphorical, lol. This speaks of the resurrection by redefining the concept of the temple, which in the israeli faith was the central place of God's presence. This does not mean, however, that Jesus intended to dismiss or negate the value of sacred places for worship. Again, this doesn't negate their importance in Christian worship; rather, it underscores the shift from a religion focused on a physical constrained building to one centered on the person of Jesus Christ of the passion. After His resurrection and ascension, the early Church did not abandon the practice of meeting together in specific places for worship. The Acts of the Apostles describe believers gathering both in the Temple (Acts 2:46) and in homes (Acts 12:12). The concept of dedicated spaces for communal worship continued, evolving into the church buildings we know today to focusing on the sacrifice
of Christ.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Where was it said that people shouldn't gather for worship? What's being criticized here is ostentatious Catholic churches and, most importantly, Catholics seeing this as a point to brag about for some reason.
1 month ago
Anonymous
see
The world itself has intricate beauty, complexity, and order, which is seen as a testament to the presence and attributes of God. The Book of Romans articulates this idea: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). Nature and the cosmos are not God, but they are a way through which His characteristics and presence are manifested. Art is a spiritual vehicle to reflect God because as human beings, created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27), we poss intrinsic creativity, their artistic endeavors can reflect and point to the Creator. If you can’t see the nuance in that, I assume protestants have a water down view of worship.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Neither of your Bible verses have anything to do with what we are talking about. Art and architecture have no value to God.
2 Corinthians 4:18: “So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.”
1 month ago
Anonymous
>This does not mean, however, that Jesus intended to dismiss or negate the value of sacred places for worship.
That's exactly what he is doing. The final miracle Jesus performed before his death was desecrating the temple to show that it had no value. I'm a little baffled that you missed the point so hard.
1 month ago
Anonymous
That just redefine God presence from the old covenant. again, this theological shift does not diminish the role of physical churches as places for communal worship and the celebration of the sacraments, all this does is situates them within the broader context.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>this theological shift does not diminish the role of physical churches as places for communal worship and the celebration of the sacraments.
Yes it does. You are missing the entire point of Jesus' sacrifice.
Solomon’s Temple was sacred and important under the rules of the Old Covenant with the israelites. It needed to be beautiful for the reasons you stated; it was a dwelling place for the Spirit of God on earth. israelites had to make pilgrimages there to make sacrifices of animal blood to pay the debt of their sins.
When Jesus died, the curtain in the temple was rended. The message was that now man had direct access to God; no more need to “go behind the curtain.”
I think beautiful churches are great and magnificent, but even humble churches today are valid. They aren’t intended as a dwelling place for God; they’re a place for believers to gather and, as Jesus says, “when two or more of you are gathered together in my name I shall be in the midst of them.”
A forest or a beach or a desert could be a place of gathering.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Yeah, Catholics believe that we have direct access to God.
hey remember when joel ostein refused to open his megachurch he furnished for free with the tithe his followers gave to people during the hurricane because he was worried about mud
>orthodogs
imagine being so invested in christgay shit that you know and employ these kinds of terms lmao
i don't know what's more pathetic, that anyone pretends to believe in their sky daddy, or that they expect anons on Cinemaphile to think that they genuinely believe when they spend their time on a straight-up satanic website
there's two groups now
there's the tradcath guys, who are now getting pretty old and they're basically just racists, however, they're actual patriots and largely pro-america
and then you have this new tradorthodox group who are doing the bidding of the kremlin and shilling for russia everywhere they go
they're also deeply at odds with one another since the tradcaths, while moronic, can see quite transparently that the larping orthodoxbros are just on the payroll
Calvary is a shit movie, it doesn't say much for Catholicism. You could have easily picked Diary of a Country Priest, directed by Bresson, something on the level of Andrei Rublev. As far as Protestantism is concerned, Germany is basically synonymous with it. All great Germans espouse Luther as one of their heroes and they all sympathise with his mission to preserve the purity of the Christian faith. One finds the influence of Protestantism all throughout German cinema. But the only movies about Protestants by a great director that I know are, I guess, Bergman's and Dreyer's, which are on the level of both Tarkovsky and Bresson.
Yeah just ignore Durer, Rembrandt, Bach, Schiller, Thorvaldsen, Wagner, etc. So tired of Tradcaths having zero knowledge of Western culture.
only person in this thread without a hopelessly myopic worldview. thread should've ended here.
no, your "side" isn't the only one in the world with redeeming virtues. wish people on here would abandon the mindset of "this thing good... everything else? bad!"
This. At the end of the day it's just a lack of culture or intelligence, dumb people like to feel superior because of whatever their beliefs are and they lack the basic knowledge to judge other beliefs.
all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
Blatant propaganda is rarely good. There's no point to movies like God's Not Dead besides an attempt at conversion or just confirming everything christians already believe. It has nothing to do with denomination, as lame as protestants have become. If the only point of a movie is "God is good" then its probably gonna be a shitty movie
I"ve been seeing some very good popular Catholic movies recently > Going My Way (1944) >The Bells of St. Mary's (1945) >Keys to the Kingdom (1944) >Come to the Stable (1949)
all kino
Where's the lie? Atheists have misunderstood the man for over a century, what makes Catholics any different?
1 month ago
Anonymous
How do you even get that out of my post?
>Atheists have misunderstood the man for over a century
If you make such a generalising pointless claim it's with absolute certainty that you want to claim Nietzsche as your own in some way.
1 month ago
Anonymous
why are you so fricking mad the church never understood that Nietzche WASN'T saying God being dead was a good thing. The complete opposite. But because he wasn't a papal paedophile you would have burnt him at the stake despite him being on your side.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Atheists have misunderstood Nietzsche
ok Black person, explain away how Nietzsche's metaphysics actually prove his religiosity. You appropriating morons are basically the same, not a single wit of philosophy within your bones, instead relying on the most milquetoast simplified lessons provided by grifting zoomers on the Internet to cobble together a mishmash of moronic ideas to sound smart.
It’s because they don’t have aesthetics. They’re too iconoclast to make any art or even create engaging content that doesn’t feel like a preach session.
Icons are kino as frick and also an unforgivable sin that must be wiped out from the church if it is ever to be restored for the glory of God. Sorry but yes I am sorry.
does anyone really think Jesus next fricked some cutie? if you know you are God in the flesh and you know you are going to be killed over some bullshit, and you want to know the whole human experience, why wouldn't you couple with the Daughters of Adam?
I think it’s possible Jesus married and maybe even had a child with Mary Magdalene. I don’t think he was a man-prostitute or anything like that. The wedding scene where he turns water into wine; he is making decisions that would fall upon the groom in contemporary weddings. But I can’t be sure.
Yeah but right now I am suffering so I relate to that one the most.
Jesus loves you, anon. And yeah, he suffered a lot so that in the next life, we won’t have to anymore. God Bless you.
1 month ago
Anonymous
He also had a lot of women in his inner circle
1 month ago
Anonymous
He had many followers. It’s only natural a lot of them would be women. As I said, I think it’s possible he married someone like Magdalene, but I doubt he went total rockstar. But the Lord works in mysterious ways. I don’t have a Time Machine, so I can’t give you a definitive answer about any of it.
1 month ago
Anonymous
more likely it's all made up; it's a fable. there might have been a Jesus, he might have been a prophet. there were a lot of prophets back then. big business pretending to know what's up when everyone is pig ignorant.
more likely, historical Jesus is an amalgamation of many different people in the hundred-years period between his death and the new testament. his miracles are lies, meant to bolster his supernatural credentials. his teachings seem straightforward and humanistic, completely at odds with his supposed nature as god himself. the entire thing is extremely suspicious and odd.
enough evidence to suggest a Jesus but Bible Jesus is a comic-book character and not real. anyone that perfect cannot be real.
1 month ago
Anonymous
I guess you’ll just have to take it on faith ;^)
1 month ago
Anonymous
>historical Jesus is an amalgamation of many different people in the hundred-years period between his death and the new testament
In 1000 years people will be saying the same thing about Henry Ford and Albert Einstein.
1 month ago
Anonymous
but there are photos of both and real things in engineering and science from both. historical jesus was known to a handful of illiterate poors. he left no writings of his own; any such writings would not survive the passage of time. everyone we know about him is second-hand or worse, and it's published by an organization that is publically, DEEPLY invested in the idea that Jesus was God.
how CONVENIENT they published an account of him that lines up with this idea perfectly.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>but there are photos of both and real things in engineering and science from both
With the invention of photo manipulation and AI you honestly think photos will be trusted by future generations?
1 month ago
Anonymous
we know all about Stalin's disappearing acts. that's why it's such a joke.
i freely admit that misinformation and AI fakes will be used increasingly to trick people into believing shit that isn't real. and the dumber people get the more susceptible they are to it.
The future is bleak if all of humanity forgets Einstein. It would be bad if they forgot Ford but unforgivable if they forgot Einstein.
E=mc^2 basically made him immortal.
1 month ago
Anonymous
There are already debates about whether or not Mikhail Kalashnikov really invented the AK-47. Some think the Soviets built it using stolen Nazi designs and simple gave him the credit to make Russians look good. In the future people will probably say the same thing about Ford and Einstein and many other famous Americans.
1 month ago
Anonymous
So then, what made Jesus of Nazareth “immortal” in the same sense? His name is better known than even Einstein.
Maybe you’re right, and some or even most of the stories of him are just fable. But what did he do to get billions of followers and create the largest religion in the history of mankind? Do you truly think this person with this following may not have even existed at all?
Occam’s Razor applies here with regards to the existence of Jesus the “human.” Even to an atheist.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Christianity gives everyone the promise of paradise, and all you have to do is believe in Jesus, sincerely, and seek forgiveness for your sins.
ETERNAL LIFE, after this one. Happiness. God is Love. Who doesn't want this??? I know I do. I just don't believe what I'm being sold.
It's just too easy.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Even if you don’t believe that part, I’m currently only debating the point of the existence of Jesus the man. That a man named Jesus or “Yeshua” existed and that a lot of people believed he was the israeli messiah and that he came to fulfill the Law of the God of Abraham.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Well he's attached to Christianity, the best deal in town. It's right there in the name. And he is the star of the New Testament.
Jesus is every bit a deity; the most successful one since Antiquity. He is popular precisely because his branded faith is popular.
I don't see what this has to do with anything. Jesus the Man is obviously not the Jesus of the Bible, because that creature is a superhero who comes back from the dead. So who was Jesus the actual guy? Maybe nobody. Or maybe he is the philosopher which uttered the intensely pro-human rhetoric of Jesus. I mean, Jesus was not famous. So his actual existence was mostly one of minor celebrity when he did something miraculous, and aside from his sham trial, he probably wasn't the center of attention most of the time, especially if he was suggesting he was capital-G God.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Digits authenticated.
This guy gets it.
They’re already saying the same shit about Florence Nightingale, and I remember a poll that said that something like 20~30% of people in England don’t believe Winston Churchill was real.
1 month ago
Anonymous
I think it’s preposterous to suggest that a person who spawned the largest religion in the history of mankind never even existed at all. You can debate his miracles, but would you ever even consider the possibility that Mohammad wasn’t real? Or King David?
1 month ago
Anonymous
Why would you assume any Biblical figure is real? So many of them are obvious fakes. Mythological figures adapted from folklore and pagan faiths. The historical likelihood of the rest is doubtful. unless they are corroborated by another source, in a historical record, i would hesitate to suggest any biblical figure existed. it could all be stories.
the old testament is so archaic, it's easy to see how it's a mythological work. the new testament is so humanistic, and so MODERN. it's about that one guy, the Son of God, and what he did. it's moving. it's a very good story, and everyone can be a winner if they believe in Him. i can see the appeal. it's obvious to me why it's popular.
>doesn't know about Durer and Rembrandt and countless other great protestant painters
You realise how stupid you make yourself look? And Orthodox shoould 100% have an icon, that their unique pictorial tradition.
Because Protestantism doesn't play into things like ornate ceremony, centralised church hierarchy, ancient secrets due to fricking over Europe for centuries, having a King of Christianity that they answer to...
Its just kind of boring and normal
The world itself has intricate beauty, complexity, and order, which is seen as a testament to the presence and attributes of God. The Book of Romans articulates this idea: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). Nature and the cosmos are not God, but they are a way through which His characteristics and presence are manifested. Art is a spiritual vehicle to reflect God because as human beings, created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27), we poss intrinsic creativity, their artistic endeavors can reflect and point to the Creator. If you can’t see the nuance in that, I assume protestants have a water down view of worship.
>hrmph we catholics have films and statues and culture
And we protestants have the United States, you swarthy fricking papist. You spiritual mexican. You are guests and are allowed to lick your Hispanic pope’s balls because PROTESTANTS made the country that your gutter ancestors fled to and wrote it into law that we have to tolerate your idolatry. You’ll never be American though.
Protestantism is… just very boring. It’s kinda like Islam where they ape out over icons, artist endeavors are just not channeled as a tool to convert. The only culture is their music.
>Protestantism is… just very boring.
Elaborate rituals and ceremonies are superfluous and alienate potential converts. You don't need to wear a silly costume and learn Latin to be a Christian.
That's the point of a religion. More importantly if the costumes and rituals and ceremonies are so important then why didn't Jesus establish them? Did he forget? Baptism and communion were good enough for the first Christans, and they're good enough for me.
>Elaborate rituals and ceremonies are superfluous and alienate potential converts.
I've heard countless testimonies from people who converted to Catholicism precisely because they found the Mass so beautiful and profound. You're lying to yourself to justify your moronic worldview.
>I've heard countless testimonies from people who converted to Catholicism precisely because they found the Mass so beautiful and profound.
If your faith is based on such a shallow foundation it will never bear fruit.
>will never bear fruit
The Catholic Church is responsible for spreading the gospel to every corner of the earth, for essentially inventing hospitals and universities, for preserving the holy Scriptures throughout the ages, for converting countless pagans, and I could go on.
You people are so unbelievably moronic it's almost not worth responding to your bullshit.
>The Catholic Church is responsible for spreading the gospel to every corner of the earth
Christianity was already spread across three continents before the Catholic Church was even invented. The only continents they spread it to were South America and Australia, which they did by raping and murdering millions.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Christianity was already spread across three continents before the Catholic Church was even invented.
The Catholic Church was "invented" in the first century. Read a fricking book you absolute moron. The history of the Church is very extensively documented.
1 month ago
Anonymous
And Christianity had spread all over Europe, Africa, and Asia before the first century. All you can really take credit for is slaughtering Aztecs and Aboriginals, which isn't the most Christian thing in the world.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>And Christianity had spread all over Europe, Africa, and Asia before the first century
Yes, by the leaders of the Catholic Church you unbelievable moron.
I hope you're trolling and not actually this stupid
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Yes, by the leaders of the Catholic Church
The Catholic Church wasn't founded until long after Paul and Barnabas were dead.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>source: my ass
1 month ago
Anonymous
The first records about the existence of the Catholic Church come from 110 AD, long after Christianity had spread across the known world.
>for preserving the holy Scriptures throughout the ages
The Catholic Church did everything on their power to prevent the Bible from being translated into English. They even made it a crime to own English translations of the Bible. The only reason you have read the Bible is because of Protestants.
1 month ago
Anonymous
The Catholic Church published their English Bible translation in 1582, decades before the KJV was even commissioned. You are wrong, and you are clearly a fricking idiot.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Wyfliffe's Bible was written in the 1380s. Incidentally Wycliffe was excommunicated from the Catholic Church for writing it and they made owning it a crime.
1 month ago
Anonymous
He was excommunicated and his Bible was banned because he was a fricking heretic trying to usurp the Christian faith
1 month ago
Anonymous
>trying to usurp the Christian faith
How, exactly, did he try to do that? Is the Catholic Church really that averse to criticism? Silly question, I suppose. Look how they treated Jan Hus.
what a moronic line of reasoning. you can make that kind of reductive argument about anything, including why people are religious in the first place. you still have atheists saying that people are only religious because they're too afraid of death or whatever
you aren't helping your cause by making arguments like these, you just look like a mental midget
>what a moronic line of reasoning. you can make that kind of reductive argument about anything
People will worship pretty much anything. Catholics worship an old pedophile from Argentina.
And just like Islam, it has a great culture which neither you nor modern believers know anything about. But modern Catholics aren't much better in that regard, since all masses of people today are ignorant of high culture.
To be fair Catholicism was intentionally designed to be complex to prevent the average Catholic from understanding what was right and wrong. They tried to prevent the Bible from being translated to English because they knew it would undermine their monopoly.
>Catholicism was intentionally designed to be complex to prevent the average Catholic from understanding what was right and wrong.
Not the actual religion. The intellectual culture surrounding it, certainly, and the church's restrictions of peasant education, certainly, but the ritual and art and such like was just a natural evolution.
Worldly power has corrupted a lot of Catholicism, but I believe there is a genuine expression of the Christian faith possible through all their ritual. One can't say it just ALL comes down to worldly control.
>To be fair Catholicism was intentionally designed to be complex to prevent the average Catholic from understanding what was right and wrong. They tried to prevent the Bible from being translated to English because they knew it would undermine their monopoly.
It's incredible that so many people still buy these sorts of myths just because they've been repeated over and over. The Church had the Bible translated into the vernacular by Saint Jerome a millennium before Protestantism even existed, he translated it into Latin because Latin was the common language of the Roman empire and they wanted as many people as possible to have access to it. That's also why the Mass itself was in Latin.
The English translation of the Bible made by the Catholic Church, the Douay Rheims, even predates the King James version, which most people don't realize.
Also, they would keep Bibles in their churches chained to pulpits, not to keep people from reading them but precisely the opposite, so that they were publicly available for people to access without getting stolen because Bibles were extremely expensive to make venue the printing press.
The Church never wanted to hide anything from anyone, that's a downright ridiculous idea when you're not so utterly ignorant of history.
>The English translation of the Bible made by the Catholic Church, the Douay Rheims, even predates the King James version.
Wycliffe's Bible predates the Douay Rheims by 200 years. Incidentally John Wycliffe was arrested and declared a heretic by the Catholic Church who also had his translation burned.
Because American protestants want to flout their religion as righteous and what makes them better than others. They don’t care about actual religious questions, themes and quandaries.
So those missing children from the Vatican turn up yet?
Because American protestants want to flout their religion as righteous and what makes them better than others. They don’t care about actual religious questions, themes and quandaries.
>They don’t care about actual religious questions
There aren't any religious questions the Bible didn't answer. Furthermore are you really going to Hollywood for religious introspection?
When Americans talk about Protestantism they think of Evangelical superchurches. When Americans talk about Catholicism they think of aesthetics. When Americans talk about Orthodoxy they think of based redpilled trad memes. It's pointless to expect any substance.
Have tradcaths really never heard of eastern, arian and coptic christianity lmao? All of them were spreading and doing their thing as the catholic church was establishing itself.
Bro Catholics and Protestants have been arguing for over 1000 years. Catholics took the term "flame war" much more literally back then.
>trying to usurp the Christian faith
How, exactly, did he try to do that? Is the Catholic Church really that averse to criticism? Silly question, I suppose. Look how they treated Jan Hus.
No, but Protestantism as we know it as born ~500 or so years ago. Of course, for ages, you had dissident Catholic priests and lots of infighting, but they were still "Catholic." The reason we have names for separate denominations and distinguish Catholicism and Protestantism as separate things was because of the Reformation.
people have been opposing the Church since the first century, read the book of Acts. there have been countless heretics throughout history, many unique heretical groups and "churches" who tried to claim the name Christian. the various groups that fall under the banner of Protestantism are just more of these heretical groups, nothing new by any means, and they'll eventually die out like all of the previous heretical movements. meanwhile, the Catholic Church endures, and just as Christ promised the gates of Hades will never prevail against it.
>there have been countless heretics throughout history, many unique heretical groups and "churches" who tried to claim the name Christian
Jan Huss didn't even leave the Catholic Church, all he did was criticize their corruption and they burned him alive. He wasn't a rebel, he just didn't like them taking bribes.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>they burned him alive.
He was condemned and executed by the secular authorities, not by the Church. Heresy was a secular crime in the Holy Roman Empire, and after several months of the Church giving him chances to repent of his heresy in order to avoid execution, they simply obeyed the law and turned him over to the secular authorities.
1 month ago
Anonymous
A greater crime than heresy is betrayal after promising safe passage, and Jan Hus died knowing he was a better man than those in charge of the Church.
1 month ago
Anonymous
you're b***hing about shit that you are clearly ignorant about.
The King of the Holy Roman Empire promised Hus would be safe.
Members of the Church then imprisoned Hus and proceeded to try to convince him to recant his heresy, which he continuously refused to do.
After months of him being a stubborn butthole, the members of the Church who had been holding him finally released him to the secular authorities, who then condemned and executed him.
The Church unironically did nothing wrong, they literally just tried to save his life.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>recant his heresy
Tell me exactly what he said that was heretical.
1 month ago
Anonymous
He translated and spread Wycliffe’s writings and publicly taught them, and it was because he was so notorious for this and for his involvement in the reform movement that he was summoned to the council by the King. Next are you going to deny that Wycliffe was a heretic? Are you that stupid? I guess we'll find out in a moment.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Next are you going to deny that Wycliffe was a heretic?
Yes. Now tell me what Wycliffe said that was so bad he deserved to have his body desecrated posthumously.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>emperor of the HRE promises safe passage >the church goes out of its way to arrest him and then confirm he's a heretic >now the authorities have to execute him when they were just going to let him come and then go >this is not the church's fault
lmao
1 month ago
Anonymous
Jan Hus tripped and fell into the fire, it was all a big accident.
1 month ago
Anonymous
The secular authorities killed him at the command of the Catholic Church.
1 month ago
Anonymous
that's not how it worked dipshit, the Church had no control over the King, quite the opposite, the Church had to answer to the King who used the Church in whatever ways he could get away with. This is how things worked throughout much of history, and the era of the Holy Roman Empire was no exception
1 month ago
Anonymous
>the Church had no control over the King, quite the opposite
Are you really trying to say that the Catholic Church had no authority in the Holy Roman Empire?
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Are you really trying to say that the Catholic Church had no authority in the Holy Roman Empire?
No, you apparently need to work on your reading comprehension. I said that the Church had no authority over the King, in response to your moronic claim that the King was only doing what the Church made him do.
Now frick off. I'm done with this stupid fricking argument, like trying to reason with a 3 year old.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>I said that the Church had no authority over the King
Lol.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Why do you keep calling the emperor of the HRE a king? It makes me think you know nothing about the actual politics of the era and you just skimmed a wikipedia page for this argument.
Threads like this are always amusing. >you have to not only believe in god, and not only believe in this one particular god, you have to worship this particular god in a specofic particular way or else you are a sinner
Rest assured my metaphorical fedora has shifted to the inclined position.
More like snore-thodox lmao
maybe on planet moron
Why do Protestants hate the Orthodox Church so much? I can understand that they're still pissy we didn't let king bong get a divorce but wtf did the Orthodox Church do to them?
The Orthodox Church combines the greed of Catholicism and the violence of Islam.
For the same reason Catholics hate the Orthodox, Protestantism is still ultimately a split off of western European Catholic culture of the time, even if it was mostly in reaction to it.
Protestants correctly point out the problems with the roman catholic church (a heresy of orthodoxy) but come to the wrong conclusion (create infinite new heresies) instead of rejoining the original church.
because protestantism is a movement built on heresy and schizm, so that is all they know and do.
Heresy and schism were all Jesus knew.
God changed the convent with his people though Christ. how can this be heresy or schizm?
It was heresy to the israelites.
Jesus fulfills the prophesy of the messiah for the and changes the covenant between god and man. Those who reject that truth are apostates.
What an evil piece of shit
>being opposed to church leaders trading God’s favor (which they have no claim to) for personal gain is heresy
Tell me another one
Most Protestants don't know they exist
Many of Bergman's films are essentially Protestant. And he reportedly died a believer.
The one on the right is the only film made by practicing Christians.
No wonder it's so bad.
Thats why making movies should be left to people who are primarly filmmakers not god believers.
I liked Calvary but the end is kind of dumb.
The priest protagonist felt really ineffectual in Calvary, he just kinda stands around and takes abuse. The pistol in the bar scene was one of the few times he came alive and acted out a true resignation of his corporeal life while not just being a wet sop.
>he just kinda stands around and takes abuse
That's the whole point, numbnuts. He represents Christ, allowing the townspeople to take out their anger on him even though he didn't deserve it, and ultimately giving his life for their sake as well, even though he was innocent.
>The priest protagonist felt really ineffectual in Calvary
The film goes out of its way to show you an ineffectual priest in comparison to him, though. He didn't apologize for himself or his beliefs, he carried himself with dignity throughout the whole movie.
Because Protestants hate beauty and art. Catholics and Orthodoxs recognized that art very much has a place in faith which has lead to some of the greatest works of art known to man. The Statue of David, The Last Supper, The Sistne Chaple.
Protestants hate art. They hate everything except Jesus because their curroption of the Testament tells their followers that Jesus is the only being they are allowed to show love for. Despite the fact that throughout Christ life, he taught the exact opposite, that beauty is to be admired, be it ones soul, and gifts, and love is to be shared.
>Catholics and Orthodoxs recognized that art very much has a place in faith which has lead to some of the greatest works of art known to man. The Statue of David, The Last Supper, The Sistne Chaple.
Yeah I'm sure the entire system of tithing and priests leaving their property to the church, making it immensely wealthy, has nothing to do with the fact the Catholics have great art.
They do have the best art but this is more of a "we are obscenely rich and mean to show it" than it is a public service.
>They do have the best art but this is more of a "we are obscenely rich and mean to show it" than it is a public service.
>Churches, monasteries and chapels are not public places that are beautified for the glory of God and the church-going public to enjoy
small brained take
anon, i don't even think the clergy believes in God. it's all so obviously false. but i am a cynic.
history is filled with Popes that were cynics, liars, thieves, adulterers, and worse. you need to take off the rose glasses and realize the Catholic church have been operated by knaves since it's inception.
>Churches, monasteries and chapels are not public places that are beautified for the glory of God
Jesus and Paul didn't preach in extravagant buildings surrounded by gold, why should we?
This makes no sense because the construction of the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem as described in Exodus and 1 Kings involved elaborate craftsmanship and valuable materials, commanded by God as a dwelling place for His presence among His people.
These were not just lavish projects but were rich in symbolism, plus its points to the beauty and holiness of God. Plus, Jesus and Paul didn’t condemn beauty or art in worship either, so this doesn’t make sense. The use of beautiful and precious materials in worship spaces can be seen as an offering of their best to God, in gratitude for His supreme gift of Himself. Can you also see that art can be catechetical tools? especially in times and places where literacy was not widespread.
In way, it shows how far Christian’s have come from a humble background to a collective force in converting the world.
>This makes no sense because the construction of the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem as described in Exodus and 1 Kings involved elaborate craftsmanship and valuable materials, commanded by God as a dwelling place for His presence among His people.
God doesn't dwell in a temple anymore, he dwells within all Christians. A Church isn't a building of gold, it is a Christian community, regardless of whether they meet in a field or a basement.
>In way, it shows how far Christian’s have come from a humble background to a collective force in converting the world.
It shows how Catholics have became corrupt and do not follow the example of Jesus.
The Church wholeheartedly agrees that God dwells within Christians through the Holy Spirit. The Catechism states this: “The Holy Spirit... makes the Church 'the temple of the living God'..." (CCC 797).
And yeah, the Church isn’t just gold, this aligns with Catholic teaching that the Church is fundamentally the People of God, the Body of Christ. It’s just that the Catholic view just holds that physical churches—buildings designated for worship—have significant value. While God does not *need* a physical dwelling and is not confined to any place, sacred spaces are set apart for public worship, the celebration of the sacraments, and communal gathering. These spaces are signs of the Church's visible presence in the world and serve as focal points for the faith. Beauty in sacred art and architecture is more than mere decoration; it's a form of catechesis and an invitation to encounter the divine. Beautiful churches draw the mind and heart to God, reflecting the glory of creation and the Creator. The CCC notes, "To the extent that they [sacred images] lead us to him, they are worthy of veneration" (CCC 2132).
The use of gold, fine art, and architecture in churches is not for the sake of opulence but is meant to honor God and reflect the beauty of His creation. It's a way of offering the best of human creativity to God, inspired by the example of the Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple in the Old Testament, liturgy mass, and all kinds of ceremonies. Catholics value the scarce.
>It’s just that the Catholic view just holds that physical churches—buildings designated for worship—have significant value.
Jesus didn't, though.
>These spaces are signs of the Church's visible presence in the world
Shouldn't you be showing your presence through charity? How does a golden throne for the Pope help anyone?
>The use of gold, fine art, and architecture in churches is not for the sake of opulence but is meant to honor God and reflect the beauty of His creation.
There's beauty in a lake or a forest, and you don't need to spend millions to make those.
Jesus didn’t value one over the other really, but Jesus did value the scarce is what i’m saying - and what Catholics believe.
Within the context of Jesus' life and teachings, He recognized and valued physical spaces dedicated to worship, while also emphasizing the importance of the heart's posture in worship. I see Jesus' actions and teachings in the Temple in Jerusalem indicate that He valued it as a place for prayer and worship. For instance, when He cleansed the Temple driving out those who were buying and selling, He quoted the Old Testament, saying, "My house shall be called a house of prayer" (Matthew 21:13, referencing Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11). This act reflects His concern for the Temple's role as a sacred space for genuine worship. Jesus also frequently taught in synagogues, which were established religious gathering places for teaching and prayer within israeli communities.
>Within the context of Jesus' life and teachings, He recognized and valued physical spaces dedicated to worship, while also emphasizing the importance of the heart's posture in worship.
No he didn't.
>There will not be one stone upon another that will not be thrown down
Jesus has the coolest lines.
That’s doesn't dismiss the kind of communal worship i’m talking about. It’s important to recognize that while Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple, which signals the impermanence of physical structures, this doesn’t not necessarily devalue sacred spaces for worship, like the Churches. Jesus emphasizes a transition towards worship that is not confined to any location but is "in spirit and truth" (John 4:23-24). His teachings critique the misplaced priorities that sometimes accompanied Temple worship, such as hypocrisy or neglect of justice, mercy, and faithfulness, rather than the concept of sacred space itself.
His ministry demonstrated that while the essence of worship transcends physical locations, gathering places for worship still hold value for communal expression and practice of faith. The prophecy underscores the temporal nature of physical buildings and redirects focus towards the enduring and pervasive kingdom of God, which is not limited by physical boundaries, but that perspective doesn't dismiss the role of communal worship spaces but places them within a broader theological context.
To illustrate that Jesus valued sacred things and spaces, including their role in worship and religious life, you can refer to His respect and use of the Temple in Jerusalem, which was the central sacred space for israeli worship. Here’s a biblical quote that showcases Jesus’ engagement with and valuation of sacred spaces:
Luke 19:45-46 - “And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold, saying to them, ‘It is written, "My house shall be a house of prayer," but you have made it a den of robbers.’”
Jesus here is actively involved in ensuring the sanctity of the Temple is respected, affirming its intended purpose as a house of prayer. His actions and words underscore a deep respect for the Temple as a sacred space.
based scholar post
It's interesting that you cut off right when you were about to refute your own point.
Because it’smetaphorical, lol. This speaks of the resurrection by redefining the concept of the temple, which in the israeli faith was the central place of God's presence. This does not mean, however, that Jesus intended to dismiss or negate the value of sacred places for worship. Again, this doesn't negate their importance in Christian worship; rather, it underscores the shift from a religion focused on a physical constrained building to one centered on the person of Jesus Christ of the passion. After His resurrection and ascension, the early Church did not abandon the practice of meeting together in specific places for worship. The Acts of the Apostles describe believers gathering both in the Temple (Acts 2:46) and in homes (Acts 12:12). The concept of dedicated spaces for communal worship continued, evolving into the church buildings we know today to focusing on the sacrifice
of Christ.
Where was it said that people shouldn't gather for worship? What's being criticized here is ostentatious Catholic churches and, most importantly, Catholics seeing this as a point to brag about for some reason.
see
Neither of your Bible verses have anything to do with what we are talking about. Art and architecture have no value to God.
2 Corinthians 4:18: “So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.”
>This does not mean, however, that Jesus intended to dismiss or negate the value of sacred places for worship.
That's exactly what he is doing. The final miracle Jesus performed before his death was desecrating the temple to show that it had no value. I'm a little baffled that you missed the point so hard.
That just redefine God presence from the old covenant. again, this theological shift does not diminish the role of physical churches as places for communal worship and the celebration of the sacraments, all this does is situates them within the broader context.
>this theological shift does not diminish the role of physical churches as places for communal worship and the celebration of the sacraments.
Yes it does. You are missing the entire point of Jesus' sacrifice.
Solomon’s Temple was sacred and important under the rules of the Old Covenant with the israelites. It needed to be beautiful for the reasons you stated; it was a dwelling place for the Spirit of God on earth. israelites had to make pilgrimages there to make sacrifices of animal blood to pay the debt of their sins.
When Jesus died, the curtain in the temple was rended. The message was that now man had direct access to God; no more need to “go behind the curtain.”
I think beautiful churches are great and magnificent, but even humble churches today are valid. They aren’t intended as a dwelling place for God; they’re a place for believers to gather and, as Jesus says, “when two or more of you are gathered together in my name I shall be in the midst of them.”
A forest or a beach or a desert could be a place of gathering.
Yeah, Catholics believe that we have direct access to God.
hey remember when joel ostein refused to open his megachurch he furnished for free with the tithe his followers gave to people during the hurricane because he was worried about mud
>joel ostein
Joel Ostein is reviled by most Christians.
Except the evangelists who give him hundreds of millions every year
Joel Osteen preys on the poor and the desperate.
Yes
Protestants are parasites
orthodogs invented iconoclasm
>orthodogs
imagine being so invested in christgay shit that you know and employ these kinds of terms lmao
i don't know what's more pathetic, that anyone pretends to believe in their sky daddy, or that they expect anons on Cinemaphile to think that they genuinely believe when they spend their time on a straight-up satanic website
I thought you guys dissappeared after Elavatorgate?
there's two groups now
there's the tradcath guys, who are now getting pretty old and they're basically just racists, however, they're actual patriots and largely pro-america
and then you have this new tradorthodox group who are doing the bidding of the kremlin and shilling for russia everywhere they go
they're also deeply at odds with one another since the tradcaths, while moronic, can see quite transparently that the larping orthodoxbros are just on the payroll
why are you on Cinemaphile if you are supposedly a practicing christian?
Calvary is a shit movie, it doesn't say much for Catholicism. You could have easily picked Diary of a Country Priest, directed by Bresson, something on the level of Andrei Rublev. As far as Protestantism is concerned, Germany is basically synonymous with it. All great Germans espouse Luther as one of their heroes and they all sympathise with his mission to preserve the purity of the Christian faith. One finds the influence of Protestantism all throughout German cinema. But the only movies about Protestants by a great director that I know are, I guess, Bergman's and Dreyer's, which are on the level of both Tarkovsky and Bresson.
Yeah just ignore Durer, Rembrandt, Bach, Schiller, Thorvaldsen, Wagner, etc. So tired of Tradcaths having zero knowledge of Western culture.
only person in this thread without a hopelessly myopic worldview. thread should've ended here.
no, your "side" isn't the only one in the world with redeeming virtues. wish people on here would abandon the mindset of "this thing good... everything else? bad!"
This. At the end of the day it's just a lack of culture or intelligence, dumb people like to feel superior because of whatever their beliefs are and they lack the basic knowledge to judge other beliefs.
>Rembrandt
His depiction of Jesus was really great, showing him as such an ultimately gentle man.
1 John 2:15-17
all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
Amen.
Cathcucks literally can't refute this whenever they post their "heh heh we have nicer churches" drivel.
>Make the world and everything in it
>WHAT THE FRICK YOU CANT ADMIRE IT, YOU TO ADMIRE ME, ME!
Why is God such a chud?
Satan rules the world and everything in it.
That dirtbag Satan is why I'm going to hell! What a rip-off.
Blatant propaganda is rarely good. There's no point to movies like God's Not Dead besides an attempt at conversion or just confirming everything christians already believe. It has nothing to do with denomination, as lame as protestants have become. If the only point of a movie is "God is good" then its probably gonna be a shitty movie
Orthodox are the only actual christians
God's Not Dead is definitely protestant trash but Calvary is a fantastic Christian movie
Switch orthodox and cucktholic
Carl Th. Dreyer was Protestant
Zinneman was israeli
I"ve been seeing some very good popular Catholic movies recently
> Going My Way (1944)
>The Bells of St. Mary's (1945)
>Keys to the Kingdom (1944)
>Come to the Stable (1949)
all kino
What's with these "God's not dead" movies? Do Christians really fundamentally misunderstand Nietzche this badly?
Protestants do, because Protestants are fricking moronic
I doubt Catholics were a friend of Nietzche either anon
If it was up to the Catholics Neitzche would have been tortured and killed for blasphemy.
This poster is 1000000000000% American
Where's the lie? Atheists have misunderstood the man for over a century, what makes Catholics any different?
How do you even get that out of my post?
>Atheists have misunderstood the man for over a century
If you make such a generalising pointless claim it's with absolute certainty that you want to claim Nietzsche as your own in some way.
why are you so fricking mad the church never understood that Nietzche WASN'T saying God being dead was a good thing. The complete opposite. But because he wasn't a papal paedophile you would have burnt him at the stake despite him being on your side.
>Atheists have misunderstood Nietzsche
ok Black person, explain away how Nietzsche's metaphysics actually prove his religiosity. You appropriating morons are basically the same, not a single wit of philosophy within your bones, instead relying on the most milquetoast simplified lessons provided by grifting zoomers on the Internet to cobble together a mishmash of moronic ideas to sound smart.
you're not even having this conversation with me
The Tree of Life mogs them all
By that logic A Simple Man might be somehow be a better Christian movie even though it's a israeli movie
>American Christianity
It’s because they don’t have aesthetics. They’re too iconoclast to make any art or even create engaging content that doesn’t feel like a preach session.
picrel is just a LARP sesh which after they get home get drunk and beat they wives
Icons are kino as frick and also an unforgivable sin that must be wiped out from the church if it is ever to be restored for the glory of God. Sorry but yes I am sorry.
In case it isn't obvious, this is an American problem as most "protestant" films are made there as feel good "I LOVE GOD XD" stories.
Post the one where it’s different paintings of Jesus
I'm personally a suffering-Christ kinda person myself.
Jesus enjoyed life a lot. He suffered, surely, but he also smiled and laughed and had fun while he was here.
Yeah but right now I am suffering so I relate to that one the most.
does anyone really think Jesus next fricked some cutie? if you know you are God in the flesh and you know you are going to be killed over some bullshit, and you want to know the whole human experience, why wouldn't you couple with the Daughters of Adam?
I think it’s possible Jesus married and maybe even had a child with Mary Magdalene. I don’t think he was a man-prostitute or anything like that. The wedding scene where he turns water into wine; he is making decisions that would fall upon the groom in contemporary weddings. But I can’t be sure.
Jesus loves you, anon. And yeah, he suffered a lot so that in the next life, we won’t have to anymore. God Bless you.
He also had a lot of women in his inner circle
He had many followers. It’s only natural a lot of them would be women. As I said, I think it’s possible he married someone like Magdalene, but I doubt he went total rockstar. But the Lord works in mysterious ways. I don’t have a Time Machine, so I can’t give you a definitive answer about any of it.
more likely it's all made up; it's a fable. there might have been a Jesus, he might have been a prophet. there were a lot of prophets back then. big business pretending to know what's up when everyone is pig ignorant.
more likely, historical Jesus is an amalgamation of many different people in the hundred-years period between his death and the new testament. his miracles are lies, meant to bolster his supernatural credentials. his teachings seem straightforward and humanistic, completely at odds with his supposed nature as god himself. the entire thing is extremely suspicious and odd.
enough evidence to suggest a Jesus but Bible Jesus is a comic-book character and not real. anyone that perfect cannot be real.
I guess you’ll just have to take it on faith ;^)
>historical Jesus is an amalgamation of many different people in the hundred-years period between his death and the new testament
In 1000 years people will be saying the same thing about Henry Ford and Albert Einstein.
but there are photos of both and real things in engineering and science from both. historical jesus was known to a handful of illiterate poors. he left no writings of his own; any such writings would not survive the passage of time. everyone we know about him is second-hand or worse, and it's published by an organization that is publically, DEEPLY invested in the idea that Jesus was God.
how CONVENIENT they published an account of him that lines up with this idea perfectly.
>but there are photos of both and real things in engineering and science from both
With the invention of photo manipulation and AI you honestly think photos will be trusted by future generations?
we know all about Stalin's disappearing acts. that's why it's such a joke.
i freely admit that misinformation and AI fakes will be used increasingly to trick people into believing shit that isn't real. and the dumber people get the more susceptible they are to it.
The future is bleak if all of humanity forgets Einstein. It would be bad if they forgot Ford but unforgivable if they forgot Einstein.
E=mc^2 basically made him immortal.
There are already debates about whether or not Mikhail Kalashnikov really invented the AK-47. Some think the Soviets built it using stolen Nazi designs and simple gave him the credit to make Russians look good. In the future people will probably say the same thing about Ford and Einstein and many other famous Americans.
So then, what made Jesus of Nazareth “immortal” in the same sense? His name is better known than even Einstein.
Maybe you’re right, and some or even most of the stories of him are just fable. But what did he do to get billions of followers and create the largest religion in the history of mankind? Do you truly think this person with this following may not have even existed at all?
Occam’s Razor applies here with regards to the existence of Jesus the “human.” Even to an atheist.
Christianity gives everyone the promise of paradise, and all you have to do is believe in Jesus, sincerely, and seek forgiveness for your sins.
ETERNAL LIFE, after this one. Happiness. God is Love. Who doesn't want this??? I know I do. I just don't believe what I'm being sold.
It's just too easy.
Even if you don’t believe that part, I’m currently only debating the point of the existence of Jesus the man. That a man named Jesus or “Yeshua” existed and that a lot of people believed he was the israeli messiah and that he came to fulfill the Law of the God of Abraham.
Well he's attached to Christianity, the best deal in town. It's right there in the name. And he is the star of the New Testament.
Jesus is every bit a deity; the most successful one since Antiquity. He is popular precisely because his branded faith is popular.
I don't see what this has to do with anything. Jesus the Man is obviously not the Jesus of the Bible, because that creature is a superhero who comes back from the dead. So who was Jesus the actual guy? Maybe nobody. Or maybe he is the philosopher which uttered the intensely pro-human rhetoric of Jesus. I mean, Jesus was not famous. So his actual existence was mostly one of minor celebrity when he did something miraculous, and aside from his sham trial, he probably wasn't the center of attention most of the time, especially if he was suggesting he was capital-G God.
Digits authenticated.
This guy gets it.
They’re already saying the same shit about Florence Nightingale, and I remember a poll that said that something like 20~30% of people in England don’t believe Winston Churchill was real.
I think it’s preposterous to suggest that a person who spawned the largest religion in the history of mankind never even existed at all. You can debate his miracles, but would you ever even consider the possibility that Mohammad wasn’t real? Or King David?
Why would you assume any Biblical figure is real? So many of them are obvious fakes. Mythological figures adapted from folklore and pagan faiths. The historical likelihood of the rest is doubtful. unless they are corroborated by another source, in a historical record, i would hesitate to suggest any biblical figure existed. it could all be stories.
the old testament is so archaic, it's easy to see how it's a mythological work. the new testament is so humanistic, and so MODERN. it's about that one guy, the Son of God, and what he did. it's moving. it's a very good story, and everyone can be a winner if they believe in Him. i can see the appeal. it's obvious to me why it's popular.
>God Bless you.
Thanks, you too.
>doesn't know about Durer and Rembrandt and countless other great protestant painters
You realise how stupid you make yourself look? And Orthodox shoould 100% have an icon, that their unique pictorial tradition.
We don’t post in 2nd person here
The one on the right is used on Mormon business cards
There are good protestant films from Europe tho. Don't confuse protestantism with amerishart religious nonsense
They lack the aesthetics that Catholics or Orthodox possess
Christian division posters are moronic
>"Panoramic" plays softly in the distance.
Because Protestantism doesn't play into things like ornate ceremony, centralised church hierarchy, ancient secrets due to fricking over Europe for centuries, having a King of Christianity that they answer to...
Its just kind of boring and normal
I'm not sure it's a Catholic vs. Protestant issue. Maybe it's the fact that Europe is a kino factory and American movies are basically filmed goyslop.
I am particularly fond of Orthodox Icon art mostly because they use real gold mixed in the paint.
Nefarious was fricking great.
Made by the same people as GND 1 and 2.
They finally made a real movie.
The world itself has intricate beauty, complexity, and order, which is seen as a testament to the presence and attributes of God. The Book of Romans articulates this idea: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). Nature and the cosmos are not God, but they are a way through which His characteristics and presence are manifested. Art is a spiritual vehicle to reflect God because as human beings, created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27), we poss intrinsic creativity, their artistic endeavors can reflect and point to the Creator. If you can’t see the nuance in that, I assume protestants have a water down view of worship.
>hrmph we catholics have films and statues and culture
And we protestants have the United States, you swarthy fricking papist. You spiritual mexican. You are guests and are allowed to lick your Hispanic pope’s balls because PROTESTANTS made the country that your gutter ancestors fled to and wrote it into law that we have to tolerate your idolatry. You’ll never be American though.
The USA is modern day Sodom.
Protestantism is… just very boring. It’s kinda like Islam where they ape out over icons, artist endeavors are just not channeled as a tool to convert. The only culture is their music.
>Protestantism is… just very boring.
Elaborate rituals and ceremonies are superfluous and alienate potential converts. You don't need to wear a silly costume and learn Latin to be a Christian.
>we want to appeal to a broader audience
I’m not religious (on Cinemaphile), but I would have assumed that Christians would want to spread the word to as many people as possible.
That's the point of a religion. More importantly if the costumes and rituals and ceremonies are so important then why didn't Jesus establish them? Did he forget? Baptism and communion were good enough for the first Christans, and they're good enough for me.
>Elaborate rituals and ceremonies are superfluous and alienate potential converts.
I've heard countless testimonies from people who converted to Catholicism precisely because they found the Mass so beautiful and profound. You're lying to yourself to justify your moronic worldview.
>I've heard countless testimonies from people who converted to Catholicism precisely because they found the Mass so beautiful and profound.
If your faith is based on such a shallow foundation it will never bear fruit.
>will never bear fruit
The Catholic Church is responsible for spreading the gospel to every corner of the earth, for essentially inventing hospitals and universities, for preserving the holy Scriptures throughout the ages, for converting countless pagans, and I could go on.
You people are so unbelievably moronic it's almost not worth responding to your bullshit.
>The Catholic Church is responsible for spreading the gospel to every corner of the earth
Christianity was already spread across three continents before the Catholic Church was even invented. The only continents they spread it to were South America and Australia, which they did by raping and murdering millions.
>Christianity was already spread across three continents before the Catholic Church was even invented.
The Catholic Church was "invented" in the first century. Read a fricking book you absolute moron. The history of the Church is very extensively documented.
And Christianity had spread all over Europe, Africa, and Asia before the first century. All you can really take credit for is slaughtering Aztecs and Aboriginals, which isn't the most Christian thing in the world.
>And Christianity had spread all over Europe, Africa, and Asia before the first century
Yes, by the leaders of the Catholic Church you unbelievable moron.
I hope you're trolling and not actually this stupid
>Yes, by the leaders of the Catholic Church
The Catholic Church wasn't founded until long after Paul and Barnabas were dead.
>source: my ass
The first records about the existence of the Catholic Church come from 110 AD, long after Christianity had spread across the known world.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/papacy
>for preserving the holy Scriptures throughout the ages
The Catholic Church did everything on their power to prevent the Bible from being translated into English. They even made it a crime to own English translations of the Bible. The only reason you have read the Bible is because of Protestants.
The Catholic Church published their English Bible translation in 1582, decades before the KJV was even commissioned. You are wrong, and you are clearly a fricking idiot.
Wyfliffe's Bible was written in the 1380s. Incidentally Wycliffe was excommunicated from the Catholic Church for writing it and they made owning it a crime.
He was excommunicated and his Bible was banned because he was a fricking heretic trying to usurp the Christian faith
>trying to usurp the Christian faith
How, exactly, did he try to do that? Is the Catholic Church really that averse to criticism? Silly question, I suppose. Look how they treated Jan Hus.
NTA but the rituals are bad because people worship the rituals, not God. It’s the whole reason Catholicism is evil and anti-Christian.
what a moronic line of reasoning. you can make that kind of reductive argument about anything, including why people are religious in the first place. you still have atheists saying that people are only religious because they're too afraid of death or whatever
you aren't helping your cause by making arguments like these, you just look like a mental midget
>what a moronic line of reasoning. you can make that kind of reductive argument about anything
People will worship pretty much anything. Catholics worship an old pedophile from Argentina.
And just like Islam, it has a great culture which neither you nor modern believers know anything about. But modern Catholics aren't much better in that regard, since all masses of people today are ignorant of high culture.
To be fair Catholicism was intentionally designed to be complex to prevent the average Catholic from understanding what was right and wrong. They tried to prevent the Bible from being translated to English because they knew it would undermine their monopoly.
>Catholicism was intentionally designed to be complex to prevent the average Catholic from understanding what was right and wrong.
Not the actual religion. The intellectual culture surrounding it, certainly, and the church's restrictions of peasant education, certainly, but the ritual and art and such like was just a natural evolution.
>Not the actual religion
Yes the actual religion. You can't even confess your sins to God in Catholicism, you have to confess to a Priest.
Worldly power has corrupted a lot of Catholicism, but I believe there is a genuine expression of the Christian faith possible through all their ritual. One can't say it just ALL comes down to worldly control.
>To be fair Catholicism was intentionally designed to be complex to prevent the average Catholic from understanding what was right and wrong. They tried to prevent the Bible from being translated to English because they knew it would undermine their monopoly.
It's incredible that so many people still buy these sorts of myths just because they've been repeated over and over. The Church had the Bible translated into the vernacular by Saint Jerome a millennium before Protestantism even existed, he translated it into Latin because Latin was the common language of the Roman empire and they wanted as many people as possible to have access to it. That's also why the Mass itself was in Latin.
The English translation of the Bible made by the Catholic Church, the Douay Rheims, even predates the King James version, which most people don't realize.
Also, they would keep Bibles in their churches chained to pulpits, not to keep people from reading them but precisely the opposite, so that they were publicly available for people to access without getting stolen because Bibles were extremely expensive to make venue the printing press.
The Church never wanted to hide anything from anyone, that's a downright ridiculous idea when you're not so utterly ignorant of history.
>The English translation of the Bible made by the Catholic Church, the Douay Rheims, even predates the King James version.
Wycliffe's Bible predates the Douay Rheims by 200 years. Incidentally John Wycliffe was arrested and declared a heretic by the Catholic Church who also had his translation burned.
>push horse off some steps
WOW CERTIFIED KINO, HOLLYWOODEI COULDNT POSSIBLY REACH THIS LEVEL OF ARTISTRY
I can't believe I share a board with false idol worshipping papists
We must kill the Bishop of Rome
Why didn't they just suicide all humans?
>YOU'RE KINOFILMING YHWH WRONG!!!
*blocks your path*
Checkmate.
I have a question. How come every time I see characters go to church in a movie or show, they always go to Catholic Church? What’s with that?
Catholics are very flashy and theatrical. Protestant modesty doesn't really translate well to film.
What movies are you referring to? If it's a little white wooden church it's protestant, and that's in a lot of movies.
in home alone the main character goes to a catholic church
No he doesn't. It's an Episcopal Church, which is a Protestant denomination.
Protties shouldn't even be watching films, considering their puritan attitudes. Oliver Cromwell didn't even allow Christmas to be celebrated.
because protties are just neo-proto post-modernists and stand for nothing
So those missing children from the Vatican turn up yet?
Because American protestants want to flout their religion as righteous and what makes them better than others. They don’t care about actual religious questions, themes and quandaries.
>They don’t care about actual religious questions
There aren't any religious questions the Bible didn't answer. Furthermore are you really going to Hollywood for religious introspection?
What a brainlet reply
It's christian nihilism
"I go to church and so I'm saved and you buttholes are fricked and I don't have to do anything"
And a river runs through it (1992)
I fricking hate Protestants so much it's unreal.
You idiots are literally worse than the most obnoxious atheists.
Sorry to hear that but I'm still not worshipping your pedo pope.
Instead you choose to worship with pedophiles and scam artists
My church is like 30 people, I doubt any of them are pedophiles or scammers.
its easy to spot a scammer. They're usually Indian. Any Indians in your congregation?
Dreyer and Bergman were Protestants. It's literally just American evangelicals that are braindead.
When Americans talk about Protestantism they think of Evangelical superchurches. When Americans talk about Catholicism they think of aesthetics. When Americans talk about Orthodoxy they think of based redpilled trad memes. It's pointless to expect any substance.
>israelite mogs them all anyways
Why do christlarpers swear so much?
Is it because of their lowly nature or because they know they are wrong?
its mostly atheists larping as Christians. Christians i know avoid cussing like the plague
Why are you taking anons on Cinemaphile seriously?
Have tradcaths really never heard of eastern, arian and coptic christianity lmao? All of them were spreading and doing their thing as the catholic church was establishing itself.
>Have tradcaths really never heard of eastern, arian and coptic christianity lmao?
They apparently haven't heard of John Wycliffe either.
People here really having the same internet arguments they had in 2014. What an unworthy existence.
Bro Catholics and Protestants have been arguing for over 1000 years. Catholics took the term "flame war" much more literally back then.
>protestants
>over 1000 years
Anon...
martin luther was one of apostles
There are just as many references to Martin Luther in the Bible as there are to the Pope.
>they don't mention Peter in protestant bibles
not surprising, really
Peter wasn't a Pope any more than Luther was.
You really think Martin Luther was the first person to oppose the Catholic Church?
No, but Protestantism as we know it as born ~500 or so years ago. Of course, for ages, you had dissident Catholic priests and lots of infighting, but they were still "Catholic." The reason we have names for separate denominations and distinguish Catholicism and Protestantism as separate things was because of the Reformation.
people have been opposing the Church since the first century, read the book of Acts. there have been countless heretics throughout history, many unique heretical groups and "churches" who tried to claim the name Christian. the various groups that fall under the banner of Protestantism are just more of these heretical groups, nothing new by any means, and they'll eventually die out like all of the previous heretical movements. meanwhile, the Catholic Church endures, and just as Christ promised the gates of Hades will never prevail against it.
>there have been countless heretics throughout history, many unique heretical groups and "churches" who tried to claim the name Christian
Jan Huss didn't even leave the Catholic Church, all he did was criticize their corruption and they burned him alive. He wasn't a rebel, he just didn't like them taking bribes.
>they burned him alive.
He was condemned and executed by the secular authorities, not by the Church. Heresy was a secular crime in the Holy Roman Empire, and after several months of the Church giving him chances to repent of his heresy in order to avoid execution, they simply obeyed the law and turned him over to the secular authorities.
A greater crime than heresy is betrayal after promising safe passage, and Jan Hus died knowing he was a better man than those in charge of the Church.
you're b***hing about shit that you are clearly ignorant about.
The King of the Holy Roman Empire promised Hus would be safe.
Members of the Church then imprisoned Hus and proceeded to try to convince him to recant his heresy, which he continuously refused to do.
After months of him being a stubborn butthole, the members of the Church who had been holding him finally released him to the secular authorities, who then condemned and executed him.
The Church unironically did nothing wrong, they literally just tried to save his life.
>recant his heresy
Tell me exactly what he said that was heretical.
He translated and spread Wycliffe’s writings and publicly taught them, and it was because he was so notorious for this and for his involvement in the reform movement that he was summoned to the council by the King. Next are you going to deny that Wycliffe was a heretic? Are you that stupid? I guess we'll find out in a moment.
>Next are you going to deny that Wycliffe was a heretic?
Yes. Now tell me what Wycliffe said that was so bad he deserved to have his body desecrated posthumously.
>emperor of the HRE promises safe passage
>the church goes out of its way to arrest him and then confirm he's a heretic
>now the authorities have to execute him when they were just going to let him come and then go
>this is not the church's fault
lmao
Jan Hus tripped and fell into the fire, it was all a big accident.
The secular authorities killed him at the command of the Catholic Church.
that's not how it worked dipshit, the Church had no control over the King, quite the opposite, the Church had to answer to the King who used the Church in whatever ways he could get away with. This is how things worked throughout much of history, and the era of the Holy Roman Empire was no exception
>the Church had no control over the King, quite the opposite
Are you really trying to say that the Catholic Church had no authority in the Holy Roman Empire?
>Are you really trying to say that the Catholic Church had no authority in the Holy Roman Empire?
No, you apparently need to work on your reading comprehension. I said that the Church had no authority over the King, in response to your moronic claim that the King was only doing what the Church made him do.
Now frick off. I'm done with this stupid fricking argument, like trying to reason with a 3 year old.
>I said that the Church had no authority over the King
Lol.
Why do you keep calling the emperor of the HRE a king? It makes me think you know nothing about the actual politics of the era and you just skimmed a wikipedia page for this argument.
which is why we have pope francis.
Why do Catholics worship Curly from the Three Stooges?
Threads like this are always amusing.
>you have to not only believe in god, and not only believe in this one particular god, you have to worship this particular god in a specofic particular way or else you are a sinner
Rest assured my metaphorical fedora has shifted to the inclined position.
I come into these threads and pretend to be all four sides.
hey Ricks
Purposefully misrepresenting something is akin to lying, which is supposed to be a sin.
yeah, atheists constantly misinterpret christian belief for their own purposes but they think it's ok because they don't believe in sin