Darren Aronofksy talks "Noah" Comments - Mania.com


Showing items 21 - 22 of 22
<<  <  1 2 3 
almostunbiased 5/1/2007 6:44:54 PM
bdd, you couldn't have read the bible. The things you're saying are rediculous. "contradicts itself every other page" - Hardly though there are admittidly some. But understand it was written over many years and translated by many men. It's bound to have errors, but don't read it so literally. Look at the big picture. "Full of bullshit "sins" like not working on Sunday" - You're a moron. It's not a sin. Jesus never said that. It is a day for man to do what ever they want. So they can't be forced to work. That's what he said. "planting two crops in one field is a sin, wearing cloth made fom two types of material is a sin, having long hair is an abomination" - are you drunk right now? "what does it say about slavery?" - It does have the jewish people as slaves and they are saved by God (Moses) "So how about you read the Bible or shut the fuck up." - You might try it yourself. What did you read the Cliff Notes version? "They added parts to it so the Church could make money, like selling fish on Fridays" Where does it say that in the bible? What the hell are you drinking? I want some of that this saturday. God is caring. He forgives you for your ignorance. And he'll hopefully forgive me for pointing it out to you in such a rude way. bdd, try reading the new testament, again. It might have been a long time for you, and even if you don't believe in God, it will at least teach you lessons on how to live your life to help others. A book of five rings is good too.
wrrlykam 5/2/2007 5:04:48 AM
"contradicts itself every other page" - Hardly though there are admittidly some. Contraditions usually from a lack of knowledge as to what is written and the background of people or statements involved. Most people think the bible says one thing when it doesn't, but some 'contractions' comes from trying to marry up church teachings (many based on greek philosophy) with the bible rather than what the bible actually says. Often the bible says so and so did this or that but makes no judgement on the event. But elsewhere they read that to do or not to do such a thing is wrong but this is not a contradition just a statement of the event. Also the way ancient cultures viewed thing or acted can make it seem like a contraction. For instance it says at one point that Canaan was Noah's youngest son. Later Canaan is listed as a son of Ham so his grandson. Contradition? No the Jews and other nations often use the word son in a sense broader than merely to designate one's immediate male offspring. It is often use for an adoptive child, grandson, great grandson or son in law. So both statements are correct in the eyes of the jewish writer, it just seems to contradict because of not understanding their cultural viewpoint. So I haven't found a 'contraditions' that with a look at the context and a bit of background research that cannot be clear up. As interesting as this discssion is, I think we are moving off topic a bit.
<<  <  1 2 3 


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Please click here to login.