Actually, as John Stott said in "Basic Christianity". Being a christian is not about believing, its a way of life.Which means, we can call ourselves christians, but we could probably not be one.As in the movie Agora, the "christians" seemed as if they were simply satisfying their ego, and forgot everything Jesus thought us. No one ever said becoming a christian was easy. Constantly fight our own ego is really hard.I believe the movie shows us just how easy is to be clouded by our own judgements.
I find it humorous when atheists complain of Christians killing people who disagree with them... What are they appealing to? How is it wrong to kill someone else? If the universe is godless, there is only one thing that dictates what is morally right or wrong: POWER
Why shouldn't Christians murder everyone who disagrees with them if they had the power to do so? If there is no god, then their own moral teachings that all men are created in the image of God & will be judged by Him are inane.
I’ve watched “Agora” a couple times. Didn’t come off as propaganda against Christianity to me. The pagans started the bloodshed, stoked the violence and established the oppressive pattern for Alexandria. Fr. Barron: “Doesn’t (the director) realize that a movie like this is actually going to foment, could, foment violence against Christians.” That’s the kind of persecution complex among various sects of Christians that concerns me. Those who feel they’re defending themselves can get drastic.
@Cathmoytura Agora didn't come across as anti-Christian propaganda?! You must have watched it with your eyes closed. And take a look sometime at the biography of the director: his anti-Catholicism is on clear display.
@wordonfirevideo The movie is more anti-pagan. The pagans initiated murder. The Christians fed the poor, not pagans. Hypatia notes that the pagan religionists were always unkind. Christians were portrayed as a persecuted minority that gained status, and some of its leaders misused newfound power no differently than others. Unless you think the movie anti-pagan, you can’t think it anti-Christian. The father expressed no concern about the movie formenting violence against the minority neo-pagans.
he is wrong 9 million people died during the spanish inquisition...the dark ages set humanity back because of christians and calling out anyone who believed in science a "witch"...very horrible!
All sorts of errors have become the common sense of the people, and we've been at the end of an age for a while now (in my opinion). The leading lights of our civilization are filled with darkness: post-Pop, post-Absurd paintings, Pastiche Music, Unintelligible physics, philosophical theories of nothingness, etc.
Perhaps setting the record (of the occident) straight is no longer good enough. We should offer an Alternative.
"Engage the culture" yes. But also Defy the Culture.
The main thing that irritated me with this film is something I saw with the film "The Ledge", where they will show some of the strongest "personal" reasons for the Christian faith, in Agora they show the very compassionate Christian feeding the hungry, and then show extensively why Christianity is bad, in order to tackle that issue without actually addressing it. In "The Ledge" it dealt with being brought out of the gutters by Christ, and pair it with (PROVOKED) violence of the Christian.
I cannot make a judgement as to the historical accuracy of the movie 'Agora' since I haven't seen it (unfortunately not even held by my local video store) or the accuracy of David Bentley Harts' book 'Atheist Delusions' I do know that there are sound academic sources that have Hypatia murdered by a mob of Christians in the early 5th Century. One such source of information can be found by googling 'fordham the murder of Hypatia' and chosing the first result.
This guys is a moron.The Vatican has a vested interest in trying to "debunk" the rise of rationality vs faith.But he does raise some salient points.ill give him that no conflict in history is ever completely one sided.We need to look at all the facts before jumping to conclusions or giving in to emotional responses.To be perfectly honest i see the recent anti Christian riots in Egypt in a different light now. This film seems to be linked to them.
So, he dismisses two books of information solely on the basis that they are biased, and then backs up his "correct" information with an obviously bias book. What's wrong with this picture??
I heard about this movie. I don't know how you sat through it without screaming in frustration.
It's great to see a Christian who is able to point out the faults and biases in a movie such as this. Christians need to evaluate every form of entertainment in this manner.
It's also an open door to talking about spiritual matters with those who may not be particularly interested in religion, but will engage in a conversation about a film, book or TV show. Well done!
Yes, you may name a few saints, but what you do not understand also how Philosophy gave birth to religion. Thanks to Early Greeks, such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and many others, they gave life to reasoning.
Probably, Too many, your review of this movie is not even close to how early christians were against pagan religions. Maybe you do not want to see how christians did killed and ransack knowledge that endanger your dogma beliefs. You obvious do not understand atheism and the knowledge that lead us gaze at the stars that lie in what you call heaven.
I have seriously not seen a film more blatantly anti-christian than "Agora." I mean scene after scene you see christians being portrayed as intolerant, violent, and against knowledge. As if the early church put a ban on secular works, which is absurd since many of the early church fathers studied the classics as well as Greco-Roman philosophy.
I would love to show this video to my astronomy class. We all had to do a speech on a famous astronomer or scientist. I did mine on George Lemaitre, due in no small part to you mentioning of him in your videos Father, while another did it on Hypatia and even showed the clip from Carl Sagan's show and made her point abundantly clear it was Christian ignorance and closed-mindedness that lead to her violent death. I wish I had known of this video sooner as to combat against her false claim.
Yet even she fell a victim to the political jealousy, which at that time prevailed. For, as she had frequent interviews with Orestes, it was calumniously reported, among the Christian populace, that it was she who prevented Orestes from being reconciled to the bishop. Some of them, therefore, hurried away by a fierce and bigoted zeal,
whose ringleader was a reader named Peter, waylaid her returning home, and, dragging her from her carriage, they took her to the church called Caesareum, where they completely stripped her, and then murdered her by scraping her skin off with tiles and bits of shell. After tearing her body in pieces, they took her mangled limbs to a place - Socrates Scholasticus (5th century)
@DonoLivesHere There were wicked people operating falsely in the name of the one who told us to love our enemies. What's your point? That Christianity is bad because there are some bad Christians? The problem is that films like this one extrapolate (simplistically) from events like the Hypatia killing and assert that Christianity as such is murderous and irrational.
@wordonfirevideo, Who is to say that their religious belief was any less pious then yours is father. Does the bible not say "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"? What makes them bad and you good? Would that be a hint of moral relativism I detect?
And, in those days, there appeared in Alexandria a female philosopher, a pagan named Hypatia, and she was devoted at all times to magic, astrolabes, and instruments of music, and she beguiled many people through Satanic wiles... A multitude of believers in God arose under the guidance of Peter the Magistrate... and they proceeded to seek for the pagan woman who had beguiled the people of the city and the Prefect through her enchantments.
And when they learnt the place where she was, they proceeded to her and found her... they dragged her along till they brought her to the great church, named Caesareum. Now this was in the days of the fast. And they tore off her clothing and dragged her... through the streets of the city till she died. And they carried her to a place named Cinaron, and they burned her body with fire - John of Nikiû (7th century)
How can we expect a Catholic priest to take ownership of the evil done in the name of his God, if his own church won't admit and even covers up the sexual abuse of children committed by his God's emissaries? Christians, as Christians, in the name of Christ, have done and do great evil, just like all other members of all other religions. Even in Buddhism, you have the persecution of the Shugden worshippers.
Its not religion,Its religious fanatic thats the problem.You find these people in all walks of life.Its ok to believe in the beauty of ones beliefs but you must allow others to have their views aswell.Peace.
And by saying resist what exactly do you mean? btw i havent heard of u a word to deny the reality of the facts that christians killed her, regardless of where which was stupid to point out to turn ppl minds away from the fact that she was killed by christians, And u twisted them around to make them look like a political aim against christians :D i cant believe ure even a priest... u sound like the guy that killed her :P and u also forgot to claim something stupid concerning her being a women
"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning... And, even since the Reformation when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate a free inquiry?"
Stand your ground? unintellectual atheism? Setting the record straight? ..This guy is full of vile vomit. Christianity is synonymous with ignorance and violence. It pervades the USA today quite thoroughly. The bodies at Dachau? The ones the christian nazi army piled up? Its a perfect reflection. This movie is a clear look at christians and all they "stand their ground" for. If ANYBODY goes on a murderous rampage of hate..it will be the christians.
What the christians did to Hypatia makes me weep openly. Literally. I hate the christians from the very depths of my being. They took so much away from so many all for the sake of the disgusting amoral evil book and idea of a sky daddy. They are no less bronze age morons now then they were then. christians, muslims, BARBARIANS!
"christian" mobs have indeed committed crimes. they destroyed a synagogue, the emperor Theodosius ordered them to rebuilt it, and "saint" ambrose blackmailed and bullied the Emperor to back down.
so evil deeds done by christians are common, and the Holy name is blasphemed because of US.
if they hate us it is because we all too often deserve it
as for neo platonism, well, IMO it is largely gnosticism, and augustine it was who gave us the Inquisition
Hypatia was the daughter of Theon of Alexandria who was a teacher of mathematics with the Museum of Alexandria in Egypt!Hypatia studied with her father, and with many others including Plutarch the Younger. She herself taught at the Neoplatonist school of philosophy. She became the salaried director of this school in 400. She probably wrote on mathematics, astronomy and philosophy, including about the motions of the planets, about number theory and about conic sections.
@busted192192 Well what a model of open-mindedness and tolerance you are! I assume that by writing this response, you think that you are correct, which by your own logic, makes you VERY WRONG. I'm afraid, friend, you're hoisted on your own petard!
@falstocat Stupid people from all religions and ideologies--including and especially modernist ideologues--have engaged in book burnings. What's really interesting is that the only reason we have access to the books of classical civilization is that the church didn't burn them but lovingly preserved them.
There were a lot of Christian Neo-Platonists (and Middle Platonists), including many who (following Philo of Alexandria) insisted that Plato derived his works from the books of Moses and some who even considered him to be a Prophet of God in his own right. However there remained those who strongly opposed these views; for example Tertullian insisted that all the Greek Philosophers were agents of the devil sent to lay the foundations for various heresies. Aristotelianism was still widely hated.
Christians DID end ancient culture. Destroying the Library of Alexandria (at the time it was in the temple of Serapis), and many others, closing the Academia in Athens, ending Olympic games, destroying temples and using their marble for lye making, brutally killing followers of the Old Gods.
Now, when Islam is on their necks, Christians are calling for tolerance. But Muslims will do to them what they did to Pagans and their culture.
The movie is above your point of view: it's about knowledge, and knowing sets you free. I cannot state all the points and the dialogue I would like to write in a comment. Anyway... the movie itself if you are a open minded watcher, states all the themes (NON VIOLENT and NOT PROVOKING) that has to be shown.
Dear Father, I disapprove your view, I accept that the movie it's not accurate, I appreciate that there are more points of view then one. But you know that who "wins writes the story and history" as it is for let's say the lord of the rings, recently rewritten from the point of view of Sauron (to make an example that is distant from any reality).
You are putting your arms forward defending Church or cristianity when everybody knows what has been done. Tolerance is something else.
I don't want to dispute the historical accuracy in this movie because its a narrative mainstream film. What matters is the overall thematic impression that the narrative is trying to convey. The aerial shots were trying to express the pettiness and bickering of all the people involved, a universal perspective on the unnecessary violence. Also, if you remember, the first once to commit mass slaughter in the film were the "pagans" which sort of undermines your argument of anti-christian bias.
@ProjectDecade: This really quite nonsensical. Jerusalem had been a Christian city b/f its subjugation by a Moslem invasion. In the 300 or so years preceeding the Crusades, Christians had experienced such things as being locked in the Church of Christ's Tomb & being burned alive, @ the order of Caliph. Having the actual tomb of Christ smashed w/ sledge hammers by that same caliph & a never ending series of raids & murders on pilgrims. The Crusades began to sop Moslem invasion of Byzantium.
dont you realize that the catholic church fomented violence against other christians (heretics) and jews for hundreds of years leading up to the Inquisition and into modern times. so remember the example of Jesus when he rescued Mary magdalena from those who would stone her to death. the stonings and lashings go on to this day.
(cont) if you notice there are lot of scenes that take place from the POV outside of the planet, from the universe. It seems to suggest, to me, how small we all are in vast scheme of things. And all the bloodshed b/c we don't all conform to the same belief is one of humanity's greatest tragedies. All in all, I think your video brings up good points :)
I enjoyed the clarification about the historical inaccuracies in the film. However, I saw the film as more of the existential POV in respects to man vs faith. You didn't mention how the Pagans started the attack on Christian before they ransacked Alexandria. Power corrupts even those of faith. Ergo, the "Christians" acting as badly as the Pagans after gaining control. And the scene where you said it made the Christians look like cockroaches? I disagree b/c (cont)
@ProjectDecade it sounds like you don't know much about church history. The Church condemned slavery long long before it was illegal. Pope Paul III in 1537 issued a Bull against slavery, entitled 'Sublimis Deus'. Racial slavery, began in large-scale during the 15th century and was formally condemned by the Popes as early as 1435, fifty-seven years before Columbus discovered America. Read also Pope Eugene IV's bull 'Sicut Dudum'
@ProjectDecade first off, you need to read history in its context. Secondly, the crusades were a defensive measure against Muslim aggression and takeover. The crusades and inquisition defended Europe from being taken over by Islam. So whether you like it or not, you owe a part of your freedom to the brave crusaders. The Church always condemned slavery, and the ideal of feminism has done nothing but hurt women and marriage in the long run.
@ProjectDecade dude, the library was destroyed by Caesar long before the Christians even became prominent in the city. Theres so many falsehoods in the movies I don't even know where to begin. And Fr. Barron is right about the film portraying Christians as these scurrying cockroaches. Liberal anti-christian bias all over the film
Nice spin, Father. Cyril used force against those who did not share his views. He had a problem with women – “especially dishonored by God”. Hypatia was slaughtered because of her beliefs and to assist him to usurp secular power (with a strong element of misogyny, me thinks). The film noting the irony of Cyril being sainted was not out of order. The Serapeum and its holding were destroyed by Theophilus. This isn’t about nasty new atheism, but a sorry part of Church history.
@wordonfirevideo It's a film: eg, I don't accept Zulu is totally accurate on Rorke's Drift in 1879. You do not respond on my comments on Cyril. What I would hope from a Church office holder is not an attempt to frame the film in the context of new atheism, and so blunt its point for discussion, but a willingness to acknowledge, deeply not defensively, the key lessons of the Hypatia crime. At least concede that sainting a chap like Cyril was a problem.
@CGrantG Take a look at the director's biography and writings and tell me honestly that you don't think he was making an anti-Christian propaganda piece. That's what I was objecting to. As I said in the video, the Hypatia case is deeply ambiguous, but certainly far more political than religious. And it's quite unclear how directly Cyril was involved.
@wordonfirevideo The phrase "ad hominem" comes to mind. I haven't read lots on Amenabar. Is he suspect because he is gay, or because he did a film on a true story of a paralysed man seeking euthanasia? But let's get back to the film content: you're very confident Hypatia was slaughtered for politics. Still slaughtered though, & by a christian mob in support of Cyril, who did not condemn it. And there's still his anti-woman theology and use of force against dissent, christian and non-christian.
@CGrantG You are aware that Hypathia was targeted because of her support of another christian faction? One that was just as "anti-woman" as the followers of Cyril.
@CGrantG You are aware that Hypatia is a Christian, right? There is no evidence that she was an Atheist nor Agnostic. A letter has been forged by a man who wanted to ruin her name after her death.
@CGrantG why don't you read actual history of that time. Not anti-christian propaganda movies. The Christians didn't destroy the library. And she was killed because of political tensions, not because Cyril "hated women", lol.
Wonderful movie. So much in it we could talk for weeks. Ironic that just 3 centuries later this region would call God by another name and bow to a different holy book. It is a movie about class struggle, revolution, search for meaning and knowledge, fanaticism,human love. It may not have been historical, but the character is a hero, IMO. An imperfect Hero, who maintained her integrity in the face of death. Some might call it arrogance, I call it tragic heroism.
The Passion of the Christ didn't incite violence against Jews.
I don't remember hatred for Persians springing up after 300.
Was there a Grecian outrage over the release of Troy?
It's a historical drama, about events 1600 years ago. No one sees that and thinks 'modern Christians'. I don't see why you feel the need to goose-step around a very real episode in your religion's history. Not everyone who has claimed to be Xtian was a hero, and the story of Hypatia and the Library deserves to be told.
@ScienceWinsEveryTime Well, it should be told objectively and fairly, and not in a way that demonizes religious believers. And friend, I rarely "goose-step." I'm quite sure that you're not insinuating for a moment that Christians are fascists.
@wordonfirevideo No, Christians are not Fascists, but an individual of any religious stripe could be a fascist as well. What I think is trying to be said in this film is that one of our greatest cities, peopled by a citizenry that would have been one united group in ethnic & cultural terms, was torn apart by religious hatred and zealotry. It didn't single out Christians, it was the violent, insistent self-righteousness of each sect that led to the loss of a great island of history and knowledge.
@ScienceWinsEveryTime I put "Christians" in scare quotes precisely because anyone who acts with senseless violence is, by definition, a bad Christian. Jesus told us explicitly to love even our enemies. What I'm reacting to here is the clear insinuation that Christianity, by its nature, is extremist, hateful and violent. And I completely stand by my claim that Hypatia was killed for political more than for religious reasons.
Friar Barron complains that the movie was misleading when it showed Jews being attacked by Saint Cyril of Alexandria, and when it presented some Christians as violent. And yet the Catholic Encyclopedia itself (nihil obstat, imprimatur) states that "A mob led by a lector, named Peter, dragged her to a church and tore her flesh with potsherds till she died" and that Cyril "drove out" the Jews. Non sequitor, too: Augustine's Neoplatonism doesn't imply that Christians didn't murder Hypatia.
@wordonfirevideo I did. The video states that Hypatia "was put to death, supposedly by a mob of [finger quotes] 'Christians'" -- in other words, the video states that Hypatia was not killed by Christians. Then it states that Hypatia "was in fact a philosopher; she was in fact an intellectual; she was killed by a mob in 415, but almost everything else about the story is false." The implication: that she was not killed by Christians. Nowhere is it admitted that she was killed by Christians.
@wordonfirevideo Also: Barron gives the impression that "Agora" presents _all_ Christians, and _only_ Christians, as violent. In fact, the movie depicts violent pagans, Jews, _and_ Christians. Fr. Barron complains that, "at the time, a number of Christian bishops were in [Hypatia's] circle of friends; Christians attended her classes with great enthusiasm" -- but that's shown in the film! It did not portray all Christians as "mouth-breathing [...] primitives."
@wordonfirevideo PS: John, Bishop of Nikiu: Hypatia "was devoted at all times to magic [and] beguiled many people through Satanic wiles." A Christian mob guided by Peter who "was a perfect believer in all respects in Jesus Christ" "dragged her along till they brought her to the great church[...] And they tore off her clothing and dragged her [till they brought her] through the streets of the city till she died. And they carried her to a place named Cinaron, and they burned her body with fire."
But still, good video. And most of your videos are interesting and insightful and I'me enjoying watching them.
I agree, you should stand your ground and Christians should set the record straight. But half of that is recognizing the gravity of hundreds of years of pure dickery on your part. Acknowledging the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusaders, and the Salem Witch Trials (not a crime specifically for you, but in the broader Christian context) is not the same as recognizing the implications of it.
Would you like the mention that Christians are depicted in the movie as being part of Hypatia's inner circle?
Would you like the admit that the Crusades were nothing but a glorified turf war carried out under a veil of faith? As if the murders committed by the Crusaders when they entered Jerusalem for the first time was any less abhorrent simply because they were more "political" than "religious".
But props to you for having the balls to cite Origen in a video about defending orthodoxy. LOL
@MobiusCoin his point was that there was a long tradition of Neo-Platonism in the Church. So if people have the idea that Hypatia was targeted because of her learning or because knowledge, reason, etc. were associated with "paganism" and this was the reason for her death (as if Christians were "anti-intellectual") then bringing up Neoplatonists like Origen and Augustine disproves that notion. There were other female philosophers as well who were not killed.
With all due respect, your logic is invalid. I am not an atheist nor a christian, but claiming that the christians were only retaliating against some prior violence they suffered (of course, they would never initiate violence) shows your own biased "gap-filling".The fact is that we don't know who started the violence, it could be any one of the factions. And relying on a Christian author to tell the true facts also does not help with the bias. Why not rely on a neutral author then?
@Danieltorrey we have a sense of who started the violence from the historical records. anything else is mere speculation. The movie has a scene where the Paraboloni (portrayed as Christian zealots in the film) stone a crowd of Jews on the sabbath in a theater, causing the Jews to retaliate some years later by stoning Christians in a church after tricking them into thinking the church was on fire.
@Danieltorrey what really happened according to the historical records is that Cyril had sent a spy to a Jewish gathering. He was discovered and flogged by Orestes. Cyril protested. Then the Jews carried out the mass murder of Christians in the fake fire incident. So the movie was done in such a way as to show that the Christians started the fighting between Christians and Jews. The Pagans are portrayed as being the first ones to start violence with the Christians, after their gods were insulted
@Danieltorrey I think what the viewer is lead to believe (after several characters and the text hint at this) is that Christianity was a banned sect FOR A REASON... because if you let them be free and get too numerous, and start to have power, they'll start being violent and persecuting everyone else. so even though the Jews and Pagans are seen as violent, their violence is sort of "understandable" because Christians really are a threat (that was my impression).
@Danieltorrey that said, I think we're supposed to see the "Christians" in the movie as modern Muslims, the "Pagans" are Western Christians (and the Jews are still Jews). So the person watching is supposed to see the "Christians" and think they all ought to be locked up... except maybe Bishop Synesius... who nevertheless thinks the solution to everything is to join the Christian [mob] (he encourages Hypatia to be baptized). the real Synesius seems to have been abandoned by and died before her
I think you need to watch the movie again. The movie didn't unfairly attack christians. It attacked the pagans, the christians, and the Jews. He put the blame on all of them. And he wasn't attacking the moderates. The movie just attacked the fundamentalists like Cyril, while portraying the moderate christians and pagans as the heroes.
We don't know exactly what happened to Hypatia or the Library.
If you look at Christian reaction to other points of view, however, especially with regard science, from current anti-abortion to creationism in schools; the middle ages (Copernicus, Galileo; burning witches ) all the way to antiquity, its not hard to connect the dots and see a trend. Science challenges the very foundation of religions. Through science religion seems silly.
@kennegun how is being anti-abortion "anti-science"? surely you're not saying the few abortion clinic bombers and killers of abortion doctors represent a greater trend? Amenbar's sermon uses classic anti-Christian narratives, but his real target is Islam, which has been far, far, more violent and "anti-modern" than any Christian group, even our worst example (ie: Westboro Baptist church)
@XSC3 I never said, anti-abortion is anti-science. Anti-abortion is usually a Christian belief. Christians will defend their beliefs, which to this day scientific discoveries have refuted. In the past defending christian beliefs meant killing people with any contrary assertions. And This has been a trend.
I'm not going to split hairs between Islam and Christianity. They both were never static religions, and are very diverse as well as similar within themselves and between themselves.
@kennegun you used it in the same list with the claim of "anti-science" so I was curious. Thanks for clarifying.
I'm curious which "Christian beliefs" science has refuted. I hope you realize that the "Conflict Thesis" is rejected by modern historians. And "killing people with contrary thesis" is the trend for Christians? How can you say that?
@XSC3 I also never used the word ''anti-science". Most early scientists were in fact Christian. Most people will follow a religion for conformity, or because of the need fr cultural identity not because they believe in the dogma. Science is merely a methodology for finding NATURAL explanations for phenomenon. Religion does not have natural explanations, they have super-natural explanations ..aka magic. Evolution, cosmology geological findings all are contrary to biblical explanations.
@kennegun "Most early scientists were in fact Christian." Except for those pesky Greeks who were doing it first...and then those pesky Muslims who were doing it at the zenith of their civilization while the Christians were scratching on animal skins. If you mean post dark ages Europe, yes those scientists were mostly Christian. But then most PEOPLE were Christian as well. and a non-Christian of that period is nearly a contradiction in terms in Europe.
@CapeandCowl but those "pesky greeks" were either polytheists or monotheists (platonists). those pesky muslims were dogmatic theists as well. so if you want to say all science doesn't come from Christian minds, fine, be my guest. but don't say there's nothing in common (or that it's atheism). the "dark ages" are largely a myth, actually and were created by the fall of the empire in the west.
@XSC3 o.O I did not say Christians cannot do science. Not once did I say so. I said science is manifestly NOT a Christian creation. It isn't. Science doesn't require it. This is a just fact. Science gets along very nicely without it.
@CapeandCowl the point being made is that "science" is not incompatible with the Christian faith. there really wasn't a time when it was. the "conflict thesis" is an outdated theory. and we can't project the views of a few modern fundamentalists onto an entire religion.
@XSC3 "And "killing people with contrary thesis" is the trend for Christians? How can you say that? "
well lets look at:
Crusades, colonization (Aztecs, N.American natives, Autralian and many many other aboriginal ppl. ), Witch hunts, persecution of early scientists. Inter-christian denominational wars (2 many to recite). You can argue that
that there were other reasons BESIDES faith that prompted these actions .. and your right. Religion was a big contributing factor.
@kennegun the way you worded it before, it sounded like you were saying that the Church just sat around until they heard somebody had a different opinion about life and then said "well we need to go kill them now" that's what I was objecting to. The Crusades were not fought for that reason, neither was European/American colonization. you could say it had to do with SOME scientists. (Giogordno Bruno for example was killed for his heresies, not his scientific theories).
@kennegun the wars of religion were fought over which denomination the king belonged to (which would determine what the state faith was). so I guess in that case you could say it was over ideas, but it wasn't just "you hold different beliefs than me? then you have to die" it was over which king you swore allegiance to. of course you could define allegiance to another sect (regardless of its beliefs) as treason, so in essence it came out to censorship, from a certain point of view
@kennegun I think in most cases the faith was a convenient excuse after the fact, but in some cases sure, it was a motivating factor (as in the wars of religion). but you could say that a king wanting to keep money/land that otherwise would have gone to monasteries or the Pope, and the ability to pick bishops that he could control would be strong motivating factors to declare himself head of the church and fight whoever disagreed
@XSC3 Sure. Christianity might of been used as a weapon to gain power. Can Jainism be used in the same way, (where their core belief is peace and non-violence instead of conversion and self propagation)?
@kennegun I don't think it has, but I don't see any reason why Jainism could not. We could have an Amish dictator as well. There's absolutely nothing stopping that from happening since many other examples have occurred of people twisting or going against the teachings of their religion. there are those who are so committed to peace that they've resorted to violence to achieve that peace. so why not? all it takes is time and opportunity
@XSC3 You fail to see the main diff. between Islam/Christian doctrine and that of Jainism. Unlike the former, the core belief of Jains is not conversion and Jain propagation. Thats why there are Billions of Christians and Muslims and maybe .. I don't know 12 or 13 Jains in the world.
@kennegun I've made this same point... Christian and Muslim doctrines have attributes that ensure that they are repeated and propagated. They are very successful memes in that sense, even if the doctrines are manipulative. Jainism, while being based on principles equal to or greater than the others in terms of morality, is not so good at getting itself spread around and copied in the minds of others. The practical value of a principle and the success of a meme are two different things.
@kennegun the witch hunts weren't over conflicting theories, it was paranoia that there were people out there with evil powers who were out to destroy society, who needed to be stopped. of course the hysteria could be used to steal people's property (accuse them of witchcraft to get their stuff), scapegoating, etc. The Inquisition was over Jews and Muslims who had converted to Christianity "suspected" of secretly practicing their old religion (insincerity, linked to disloyalty)
@kennegun there's a critique here but it's not the one you're getting at. Being a Muslim or a Jew openly, no problem (though Christians will try to convert you). It was if you pretended to become a Christian but secretly continued to practice Islam or Judaism (conversion for social advantage). the real critique is that there was such pressure to conform that people would fake it (and then others would seek to punish that fakery)
@kennegun "We don't know exactly what happened to Hypatia or the Library."
We have the historical records and we have speculation. A movie could be made following the records and go with that. the earliest records don't call her a "witch" or a sexual deviant. they don't portray her gender, learning or religion as the reason for her murder (in accounts which condemn the violence)
All I can find about Ken Ham is that he's a young earth creationist who opened a 27 million dollar creation museum in Kentucky a few years ago, and from a quote on Wikipedia, he appreciates that his wife is submissive...? So, I'm not sure to what exactly you were referring in his case.
@CapeandCowl Thank you, CapeandCowl. Father fails in seeing is the movie actually did spread the blame around for the conflicts that arose during that time to the various factions. This story is a warning from history how conflicts like these cost all of humanity. Its not just some outright comdemnation of one religion. I think he's just having a hard time accepting that the faith he dedicated his life to isn't as clean and unblemished as he wishes everyone to believe.
@acorrales1380 exactly. He misses the point that Hypatia is trying to get her students to see, as she says "we are all brothers" because they are joined by something that transcends religious dogmas and beliefs in gods. This priest plainly excludes parts of the film that don't fit with his Christians are victims of everyone mythology.
@CapeandCowl and, as you say, he ignore that Christians are not uniformly shown as bad. We see Christians feeding the hungry, for example. The film is complex and well thought through. The priest here, on the other than, has a rather selective and piecemeal view of it.
@acorrales1380 Oh spare me the condescension! Watch the movie one more time and tell me honestly that the filmmaker is sympathetic to Christianity or the least bit sensitive to the complexity of the historical situation. And if you doubt my reading, take a good long look at the filmmaker's biography. He is on the public record as deeply anti-Christian.
@wordonfirevideo lets see. In the film who starts the bloodshed? Christians? No. Its the pagans. Who then perpetuates the violence? Christians and Jews? Who defends the rights of all three sides in the conflict? Hypatia! Are Christians not in her inner circle? Did Christians not, once they had political power, do to others what the Romans had done to them. Barron is just blowing hot air either deliberately or the result of a very poor memory.
@CapeandCowl I do agree when Christianity was politicized and institutionalized, there were Christian groups, especially the Catholic church that perpetuated and encouraged the persecution of other human beings. I do not disagree or try to explain it away. I think it is tragic when ANY social/religious group of humans attacks and kills another. If you can't convert them, kill them is thankfully not an ideology we see among Christian's today (that I know of), but we do in other religions.
I didn't make the claim. It is clearly written in the Bible. All I did was show you a verse that is clear on the subject.. There is such a thing as repentance, and forgiveness for ALL people if they accept God's gift of salvation. Even someone as bad as Hitler can be redeemed. Ultimately it is up to God to judge the hearts of men, yet with true repentance comes a change in the person from the inside out. They would begin bearing good fruit, which would be discernible by other people.
@laytf7 well the appeal to authority is a poor argument. The fact is that what it allows you to do is claim that your interpretation of the bible is the only true one. So I ask you again where the Purtians Christian or not? Was Saint Cyril a Christian or not? With what warrant do you claim to know the meaning and intent of the bible better than someone like Cyril?
@CapeandCowl The Puritan movement started out with good intentions, however I assume you refer to the New England Puritans and the Salem Witch Trials. Wikipedia: "Puritans in colonial America...were among the most radical Puritans and [their] social experiment took the form of a theocracy." They were a sort of rabid fundamentalist group. They began accusing and hanging people. Any who supported the wrongdoing were not following Christ's teachings. They judged people & took God's role away.
@laytf7 well there you go. Puritans, as despicable as they were, were still Christians. Popes, even when they do, as they often do, morally and ethically suspect things, are still Christians. All you are doing is making a pretty facile argument in order to claim that no "true" Christian would ever ever do a bad thing. To claim that Cyril was not a "true" Christian is simply ridiculous. Of course he was. He just did things you don't like.
@CapeandCowl A personal relationship with God is an individual matter and you can't say all Puritans went to heaven (and I'm not saying all of them DIDN'T), What are you implying by saying they are Christians? For you that means anyone who calls themself a Christian is going to heaven. It doesn't matter to you WHAT that person does, or if they act like a Christian. You ignore things Jesus said about following him, in the Bible, because that's convenient and it makes you feel better.
@laytf7 correct labels, statements of belief are MEANINGLESS. What you claim to believe is meaningless. what you do is what matters. However, you are totally hung on labels. And dude, I do not believe in a heaven. So I don't think that you are going to someplace when you die. You're just dead. What I am saying is you need your label of Christian to be pure and so therefore, reject any Christian who does horrible things and say they are not "true"believers. Which is patent nonsense.
@CapeandCowl I agree what man DOES is what matters, and I have been repeatedly saying this with the Bible's verses about good and bad fruit. I don't like the label. It seems pretty meaningless when anyone can adopt it. What bothers me about the label is that it lumps all people together who simply believe in God/Jesus, regardless of their actions. I don't need the label, and I don't claim it. If someone asks, then I tell them I am a follower of Jesus, not a member of a man made institution.
@CapeandCowl I've already explained to you why I disagree with such a label. Also, one of the biggest tenets of Jesus' teachings is forgiveness (70x7). This DEFINITELY goes against human nature, but it is what Christ taught. Do you honestly believe that if EVERYONE tried to follow the teachings of Jesus that there would BE suffering? Of course not, that is why after Jesus comes back, when evil has been vanquished, there will be peace on earth; the only ones left will be those who believe.
@laytf7 again you avoid the question. What would have happened if we had followed the Christian notion of not opposing evil and turning the other cheek in WW2? Its a simple question.
@CapeandCowl No one knows what would have happened. More people would have died, but no one knows if it would have been more than the number of soldiers the Allies lost fighting. Why aren't we out fighting every gov't that is currently persecuting and killing entire groups of people? We fought some in Vietnam, Bosnia, and now in Iraq, but we only involve ourselves when it's politically expedient or makes a difference for our country.
@CapeandCowl No I SAID no one knows if more people would have died (with no intervention) than the number of Allied soldiers who ended up getting killed. You don't know what would have happened either. Maybe Hitler would have died and the Nazi regime would have fallen apart. You can't say what the outcome would have been, that's preposterous. FTR, I'm against persecution and murder, not defending oneself or one's country (in certain circumstances). And I'm glad we stopped ALL the Axis powers.
@laytf7 Let me ask you for a plain yes or no answer because you keep ducking it:
As a self described follower of Christ, referencing Jesus clear instruction to turn the other cheek and not oppose an evil person, would you agree in fighting a Hitler, or similar tyrant, by force of arms or not? YES OR NO?
@CapeandCowl According to Gill: 'Turn the other cheek' "is not [referring to]...any sort of evil, not of...sin...bad actions..false doctrines, which are to be opposed; nor of the evil one, Satan, who is to be resisted; but of an evil man, an injurious one, who has done us an injury. We must not render evil for evil...but...a man may lawfully defend himself, and endeavour to secure himself from injuries; [he]...may appear to the civil magistrate...; but...not...make use of private revenge."
@laytf7 rhetorical nonsense. Jesus does not say in the sermon on the Mount "do not resist an evil person....except under the following circumstances...". Jesus gives no instructions for when it is morally permissible to do violence upon another person. Jesus was not a Shaolin monk, who was a pacifist save for particular circumstances. Jesus' instruction is plain as day. Don't fight back, don't resist. Leave it up to god. Which is hopelessly stupid and naive.
@CapeandCowl so you're saying that Christians aren't following Jesus (which is bad) but if they did follow Jesus, they would be "hopelessly stupid and naive"? Maybe then the Islamic idea is better... when you are the minority be peaceful. when you are the majority and powerful then you can throw your weight around. don't fight, unless you are threatened, and then crush your enemies until you're in charge.
@XSC3 No. I said the notion of turning the other cheek and not opposing an evil person - the core of Jesus' political and moral ideas - is hopelessly naive and stupid. It would mean if taken seriously, you would not fight a Hitler, or a Bin Ladin and or any other evil person who seeks to destroy civilization. you would stand aside and watch and evil people do horrible things. You would not so much lift a figure to protect the innocent from those who would prey on them. Its an immoral idea.
@XSC3 just war theory is more in line with what I would accept. It is worth noting, however, there is nothing Jesus ever said that even reflects just war. The scriptures are very clear on it. He says, without any caveats, without any exceptions, do not oppose an evil person. He does not say you can oppose them if they are REALLY bad. You just don't oppose them. A Christian who subscribes to a just war concept is contradicting, clearly, the words they deem to be of their perfect master.
@CapeandCowl I wouldn't call this ducking it: "FTR (for the record), I'm against persecution and murder, not defending oneself or one's country (in certain circumstances). And I'm glad we stopped ALL the Axis powers." Since you ask for 'yes' or 'no', then my answer is YES.
@laytf7 Then how to you call yourself a "follower of Jesus"? You condemned all Christians who you deem not following the bible well enough. Those who did bad things are not, in your view, Christians. Therefore, if you are willing to take up arms to fight a tyrant, how then do you figure you are obeying Jesus's fanatically naive pacifist ideas?
Actually, as John Stott said in "Basic Christianity". Being a christian is not about believing, its a way of life.Which means, we can call ourselves christians, but we could probably not be one.As in the movie Agora, the "christians" seemed as if they were simply satisfying their ego, and forgot everything Jesus thought us. No one ever said becoming a christian was easy. Constantly fight our own ego is really hard.I believe the movie shows us just how easy is to be clouded by our own judgements.
ravenfyhre 3 weeks ago
I find it humorous when atheists complain of Christians killing people who disagree with them... What are they appealing to? How is it wrong to kill someone else? If the universe is godless, there is only one thing that dictates what is morally right or wrong: POWER
Why shouldn't Christians murder everyone who disagrees with them if they had the power to do so? If there is no god, then their own moral teachings that all men are created in the image of God & will be judged by Him are inane.
captainwasabi13 1 month ago
@captainwasabi13 Hey... I just read your comment. Are you trolling??? If not, where do you get your morality from?
matthelion 19 hours ago
I’ve watched “Agora” a couple times. Didn’t come off as propaganda against Christianity to me. The pagans started the bloodshed, stoked the violence and established the oppressive pattern for Alexandria. Fr. Barron: “Doesn’t (the director) realize that a movie like this is actually going to foment, could, foment violence against Christians.” That’s the kind of persecution complex among various sects of Christians that concerns me. Those who feel they’re defending themselves can get drastic.
Cathmoytura 1 month ago
@Cathmoytura Agora didn't come across as anti-Christian propaganda?! You must have watched it with your eyes closed. And take a look sometime at the biography of the director: his anti-Catholicism is on clear display.
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago
@wordonfirevideo The movie is more anti-pagan. The pagans initiated murder. The Christians fed the poor, not pagans. Hypatia notes that the pagan religionists were always unkind. Christians were portrayed as a persecuted minority that gained status, and some of its leaders misused newfound power no differently than others. Unless you think the movie anti-pagan, you can’t think it anti-Christian. The father expressed no concern about the movie formenting violence against the minority neo-pagans.
Cathmoytura 1 month ago
he is wrong 9 million people died during the spanish inquisition...the dark ages set humanity back because of christians and calling out anyone who believed in science a "witch"...very horrible!
krisluvs1 2 months ago
@krisluvs1
9 million pople
lol
pain did not have 9 million people
niinja2 1 month ago
All sorts of errors have become the common sense of the people, and we've been at the end of an age for a while now (in my opinion). The leading lights of our civilization are filled with darkness: post-Pop, post-Absurd paintings, Pastiche Music, Unintelligible physics, philosophical theories of nothingness, etc.
Perhaps setting the record (of the occident) straight is no longer good enough. We should offer an Alternative.
"Engage the culture" yes. But also Defy the Culture.
roryscanlon 2 months ago in playlist Fr. Barron
The main thing that irritated me with this film is something I saw with the film "The Ledge", where they will show some of the strongest "personal" reasons for the Christian faith, in Agora they show the very compassionate Christian feeding the hungry, and then show extensively why Christianity is bad, in order to tackle that issue without actually addressing it. In "The Ledge" it dealt with being brought out of the gutters by Christ, and pair it with (PROVOKED) violence of the Christian.
lambofgodofwariz 2 months ago
I cannot make a judgement as to the historical accuracy of the movie 'Agora' since I haven't seen it (unfortunately not even held by my local video store) or the accuracy of David Bentley Harts' book 'Atheist Delusions' I do know that there are sound academic sources that have Hypatia murdered by a mob of Christians in the early 5th Century. One such source of information can be found by googling 'fordham the murder of Hypatia' and chosing the first result.
danielmalpollitt 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This guys is a moron.The Vatican has a vested interest in trying to "debunk" the rise of rationality vs faith.But he does raise some salient points.ill give him that no conflict in history is ever completely one sided.We need to look at all the facts before jumping to conclusions or giving in to emotional responses.To be perfectly honest i see the recent anti Christian riots in Egypt in a different light now. This film seems to be linked to them.
MrAzdaz 3 months ago
Comment removed
MrAzdaz 3 months ago
So, he dismisses two books of information solely on the basis that they are biased, and then backs up his "correct" information with an obviously bias book. What's wrong with this picture??
BreakTheSkyMyseIf 3 months ago
I heard about this movie. I don't know how you sat through it without screaming in frustration.
It's great to see a Christian who is able to point out the faults and biases in a movie such as this. Christians need to evaluate every form of entertainment in this manner.
It's also an open door to talking about spiritual matters with those who may not be particularly interested in religion, but will engage in a conversation about a film, book or TV show. Well done!
Yesica1993 4 months ago
Yes, you may name a few saints, but what you do not understand also how Philosophy gave birth to religion. Thanks to Early Greeks, such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and many others, they gave life to reasoning.
llGemini 4 months ago
Probably, Too many, your review of this movie is not even close to how early christians were against pagan religions. Maybe you do not want to see how christians did killed and ransack knowledge that endanger your dogma beliefs. You obvious do not understand atheism and the knowledge that lead us gaze at the stars that lie in what you call heaven.
llGemini 4 months ago
I have seriously not seen a film more blatantly anti-christian than "Agora." I mean scene after scene you see christians being portrayed as intolerant, violent, and against knowledge. As if the early church put a ban on secular works, which is absurd since many of the early church fathers studied the classics as well as Greco-Roman philosophy.
StAugustine79 4 months ago
I would love to show this video to my astronomy class. We all had to do a speech on a famous astronomer or scientist. I did mine on George Lemaitre, due in no small part to you mentioning of him in your videos Father, while another did it on Hypatia and even showed the clip from Carl Sagan's show and made her point abundantly clear it was Christian ignorance and closed-mindedness that lead to her violent death. I wish I had known of this video sooner as to combat against her false claim.
Childinfaith 5 months ago
Yet even she fell a victim to the political jealousy, which at that time prevailed. For, as she had frequent interviews with Orestes, it was calumniously reported, among the Christian populace, that it was she who prevented Orestes from being reconciled to the bishop. Some of them, therefore, hurried away by a fierce and bigoted zeal,
DonoLivesHere 5 months ago
whose ringleader was a reader named Peter, waylaid her returning home, and, dragging her from her carriage, they took her to the church called Caesareum, where they completely stripped her, and then murdered her by scraping her skin off with tiles and bits of shell. After tearing her body in pieces, they took her mangled limbs to a place - Socrates Scholasticus (5th century)
DonoLivesHere 5 months ago
@DonoLivesHere There were wicked people operating falsely in the name of the one who told us to love our enemies. What's your point? That Christianity is bad because there are some bad Christians? The problem is that films like this one extrapolate (simplistically) from events like the Hypatia killing and assert that Christianity as such is murderous and irrational.
wordonfirevideo 5 months ago
@wordonfirevideo, Who is to say that their religious belief was any less pious then yours is father. Does the bible not say "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"? What makes them bad and you good? Would that be a hint of moral relativism I detect?
DonoLivesHere 5 months ago
And, in those days, there appeared in Alexandria a female philosopher, a pagan named Hypatia, and she was devoted at all times to magic, astrolabes, and instruments of music, and she beguiled many people through Satanic wiles... A multitude of believers in God arose under the guidance of Peter the Magistrate... and they proceeded to seek for the pagan woman who had beguiled the people of the city and the Prefect through her enchantments.
DonoLivesHere 5 months ago
Comment removed
DonoLivesHere 5 months ago
And when they learnt the place where she was, they proceeded to her and found her... they dragged her along till they brought her to the great church, named Caesareum. Now this was in the days of the fast. And they tore off her clothing and dragged her... through the streets of the city till she died. And they carried her to a place named Cinaron, and they burned her body with fire - John of Nikiû (7th century)
DonoLivesHere 5 months ago
How can we expect a Catholic priest to take ownership of the evil done in the name of his God, if his own church won't admit and even covers up the sexual abuse of children committed by his God's emissaries? Christians, as Christians, in the name of Christ, have done and do great evil, just like all other members of all other religions. Even in Buddhism, you have the persecution of the Shugden worshippers.
alienbaroque 5 months ago
Its not religion,Its religious fanatic thats the problem.You find these people in all walks of life.Its ok to believe in the beauty of ones beliefs but you must allow others to have their views aswell.Peace.
umaara100 5 months ago
And by saying resist what exactly do you mean? btw i havent heard of u a word to deny the reality of the facts that christians killed her, regardless of where which was stupid to point out to turn ppl minds away from the fact that she was killed by christians, And u twisted them around to make them look like a political aim against christians :D i cant believe ure even a priest... u sound like the guy that killed her :P and u also forgot to claim something stupid concerning her being a women
jojhabib 6 months ago
"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning... And, even since the Reformation when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate a free inquiry?"
John Adams
Photo0Nic 7 months ago
Stand your ground? unintellectual atheism? Setting the record straight? ..This guy is full of vile vomit. Christianity is synonymous with ignorance and violence. It pervades the USA today quite thoroughly. The bodies at Dachau? The ones the christian nazi army piled up? Its a perfect reflection. This movie is a clear look at christians and all they "stand their ground" for. If ANYBODY goes on a murderous rampage of hate..it will be the christians.
BrynjaLives 7 months ago
@BrynjaLives Thanks for beautifully proving my point!
wordonfirevideo 7 months ago 5
@BrynjaLives Did you intend this to be self accusation?
m1chae15 4 months ago in playlist +Theis, A ... +Catholic +Hahn +Scott
@BrynjaLives Have you ever heard of an ad hominem argument? It is a logical fallacy.
Matt51112 2 months ago
What the christians did to Hypatia makes me weep openly. Literally. I hate the christians from the very depths of my being. They took so much away from so many all for the sake of the disgusting amoral evil book and idea of a sky daddy. They are no less bronze age morons now then they were then. christians, muslims, BARBARIANS!
BrynjaLives 7 months ago
"christian" mobs have indeed committed crimes. they destroyed a synagogue, the emperor Theodosius ordered them to rebuilt it, and "saint" ambrose blackmailed and bullied the Emperor to back down.
so evil deeds done by christians are common, and the Holy name is blasphemed because of US.
if they hate us it is because we all too often deserve it
as for neo platonism, well, IMO it is largely gnosticism, and augustine it was who gave us the Inquisition
Strefanasha 7 months ago
Hypatia was the daughter of Theon of Alexandria who was a teacher of mathematics with the Museum of Alexandria in Egypt!Hypatia studied with her father, and with many others including Plutarch the Younger. She herself taught at the Neoplatonist school of philosophy. She became the salaried director of this school in 400. She probably wrote on mathematics, astronomy and philosophy, including about the motions of the planets, about number theory and about conic sections.
nixter888 7 months ago
In history no one is wrong or right. You are not wrong and neither is the film. And i can say that neither you nor the film is totally correct.
But insisting YOU are correct, is VERY WRONG.
PS. With your attitude i'm sure you would have been the one leading the stoning of hypathia had you been in Alexandria at the time. Just my opnion.
busted192192 7 months ago
@busted192192 Well what a model of open-mindedness and tolerance you are! I assume that by writing this response, you think that you are correct, which by your own logic, makes you VERY WRONG. I'm afraid, friend, you're hoisted on your own petard!
wordonfirevideo 7 months ago
@wordonfirevideo by* your own petard
Your handle is amusing. Burned any books, lately?
falstocat 7 months ago
@falstocat Stupid people from all religions and ideologies--including and especially modernist ideologues--have engaged in book burnings. What's really interesting is that the only reason we have access to the books of classical civilization is that the church didn't burn them but lovingly preserved them.
wordonfirevideo 7 months ago
There were a lot of Christian Neo-Platonists (and Middle Platonists), including many who (following Philo of Alexandria) insisted that Plato derived his works from the books of Moses and some who even considered him to be a Prophet of God in his own right. However there remained those who strongly opposed these views; for example Tertullian insisted that all the Greek Philosophers were agents of the devil sent to lay the foundations for various heresies. Aristotelianism was still widely hated.
magister343 8 months ago
I have no doubt that the smiling priest would be gladly stoning and skinning Hypatia alive himself if he was in Alexandria in IVth century
RCruz62 8 months ago
Christians DID end ancient culture. Destroying the Library of Alexandria (at the time it was in the temple of Serapis), and many others, closing the Academia in Athens, ending Olympic games, destroying temples and using their marble for lye making, brutally killing followers of the Old Gods.
Now, when Islam is on their necks, Christians are calling for tolerance. But Muslims will do to them what they did to Pagans and their culture.
arna11420 8 months ago
Thank you for this review!
sammythangerules 8 months ago
The movie is above your point of view: it's about knowledge, and knowing sets you free. I cannot state all the points and the dialogue I would like to write in a comment. Anyway... the movie itself if you are a open minded watcher, states all the themes (NON VIOLENT and NOT PROVOKING) that has to be shown.
Open your mind!
Dippi17 8 months ago
Dear Father, I disapprove your view, I accept that the movie it's not accurate, I appreciate that there are more points of view then one. But you know that who "wins writes the story and history" as it is for let's say the lord of the rings, recently rewritten from the point of view of Sauron (to make an example that is distant from any reality).
You are putting your arms forward defending Church or cristianity when everybody knows what has been done. Tolerance is something else.
Dippi17 8 months ago
I don't want to dispute the historical accuracy in this movie because its a narrative mainstream film. What matters is the overall thematic impression that the narrative is trying to convey. The aerial shots were trying to express the pettiness and bickering of all the people involved, a universal perspective on the unnecessary violence. Also, if you remember, the first once to commit mass slaughter in the film were the "pagans" which sort of undermines your argument of anti-christian bias.
otakingkohkun 8 months ago
@otakingkohkun But friend, look at the overall approach of the film, and then read the director's biography. I think you'll reconsider your position.
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago
yah keep that record straight father... hahahahh ahhhh :P
quicktoes13 8 months ago
@ProjectDecade: This really quite nonsensical. Jerusalem had been a Christian city b/f its subjugation by a Moslem invasion. In the 300 or so years preceeding the Crusades, Christians had experienced such things as being locked in the Church of Christ's Tomb & being burned alive, @ the order of Caliph. Having the actual tomb of Christ smashed w/ sledge hammers by that same caliph & a never ending series of raids & murders on pilgrims. The Crusades began to sop Moslem invasion of Byzantium.
VictorLepanto 9 months ago
'Vile & unintelligent atheism' - Oh the irony!
sitemountain 9 months ago
nice spin, dosnt change the facts
o0AndromedaB0o 10 months ago
@o0AndromedaB0o all religion is a spin on a spin of a spin.
buggfire 9 months ago
dont you realize that the catholic church fomented violence against other christians (heretics) and jews for hundreds of years leading up to the Inquisition and into modern times. so remember the example of Jesus when he rescued Mary magdalena from those who would stone her to death. the stonings and lashings go on to this day.
mitomke 11 months ago
(cont) if you notice there are lot of scenes that take place from the POV outside of the planet, from the universe. It seems to suggest, to me, how small we all are in vast scheme of things. And all the bloodshed b/c we don't all conform to the same belief is one of humanity's greatest tragedies. All in all, I think your video brings up good points :)
valleri07 11 months ago
I enjoyed the clarification about the historical inaccuracies in the film. However, I saw the film as more of the existential POV in respects to man vs faith. You didn't mention how the Pagans started the attack on Christian before they ransacked Alexandria. Power corrupts even those of faith. Ergo, the "Christians" acting as badly as the Pagans after gaining control. And the scene where you said it made the Christians look like cockroaches? I disagree b/c (cont)
valleri07 11 months ago
@ProjectDecade it sounds like you don't know much about church history. The Church condemned slavery long long before it was illegal. Pope Paul III in 1537 issued a Bull against slavery, entitled 'Sublimis Deus'. Racial slavery, began in large-scale during the 15th century and was formally condemned by the Popes as early as 1435, fifty-seven years before Columbus discovered America. Read also Pope Eugene IV's bull 'Sicut Dudum'
CreedChrist 11 months ago
@ProjectDecade first off, you need to read history in its context. Secondly, the crusades were a defensive measure against Muslim aggression and takeover. The crusades and inquisition defended Europe from being taken over by Islam. So whether you like it or not, you owe a part of your freedom to the brave crusaders. The Church always condemned slavery, and the ideal of feminism has done nothing but hurt women and marriage in the long run.
CreedChrist 11 months ago
@ProjectDecade dude, the library was destroyed by Caesar long before the Christians even became prominent in the city. Theres so many falsehoods in the movies I don't even know where to begin. And Fr. Barron is right about the film portraying Christians as these scurrying cockroaches. Liberal anti-christian bias all over the film
CreedChrist 11 months ago
@ProjectDecade Sadly true
Kirnus 11 months ago
The stupid thing is about this is the movie is not anti-Christian. Its anti fundamentalism!
Kirnus 11 months ago
Nice spin, Father. Cyril used force against those who did not share his views. He had a problem with women – “especially dishonored by God”. Hypatia was slaughtered because of her beliefs and to assist him to usurp secular power (with a strong element of misogyny, me thinks). The film noting the irony of Cyril being sainted was not out of order. The Serapeum and its holding were destroyed by Theophilus. This isn’t about nasty new atheism, but a sorry part of Church history.
CGrantG 1 year ago
@CGrantG You can watch that anti-Christian propaganda piece and honestly say that I'm the one who is "spinning" history? Give me a break!
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo It's a film: eg, I don't accept Zulu is totally accurate on Rorke's Drift in 1879. You do not respond on my comments on Cyril. What I would hope from a Church office holder is not an attempt to frame the film in the context of new atheism, and so blunt its point for discussion, but a willingness to acknowledge, deeply not defensively, the key lessons of the Hypatia crime. At least concede that sainting a chap like Cyril was a problem.
CGrantG 1 year ago
@CGrantG Take a look at the director's biography and writings and tell me honestly that you don't think he was making an anti-Christian propaganda piece. That's what I was objecting to. As I said in the video, the Hypatia case is deeply ambiguous, but certainly far more political than religious. And it's quite unclear how directly Cyril was involved.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo The phrase "ad hominem" comes to mind. I haven't read lots on Amenabar. Is he suspect because he is gay, or because he did a film on a true story of a paralysed man seeking euthanasia? But let's get back to the film content: you're very confident Hypatia was slaughtered for politics. Still slaughtered though, & by a christian mob in support of Cyril, who did not condemn it. And there's still his anti-woman theology and use of force against dissent, christian and non-christian.
CGrantG 1 year ago
@CGrantG You are aware that Hypathia was targeted because of her support of another christian faction? One that was just as "anti-woman" as the followers of Cyril.
bullpeople 1 year ago
@CGrantG You are aware that Hypatia is a Christian, right? There is no evidence that she was an Atheist nor Agnostic. A letter has been forged by a man who wanted to ruin her name after her death.
jshjamaarify 11 months ago
@CGrantG why don't you read actual history of that time. Not anti-christian propaganda movies. The Christians didn't destroy the library. And she was killed because of political tensions, not because Cyril "hated women", lol.
CreedChrist 11 months ago
Wonderful movie. So much in it we could talk for weeks. Ironic that just 3 centuries later this region would call God by another name and bow to a different holy book. It is a movie about class struggle, revolution, search for meaning and knowledge, fanaticism,human love. It may not have been historical, but the character is a hero, IMO. An imperfect Hero, who maintained her integrity in the face of death. Some might call it arrogance, I call it tragic heroism.
adstanra 1 year ago
The Passion of the Christ didn't incite violence against Jews.
I don't remember hatred for Persians springing up after 300.
Was there a Grecian outrage over the release of Troy?
It's a historical drama, about events 1600 years ago. No one sees that and thinks 'modern Christians'. I don't see why you feel the need to goose-step around a very real episode in your religion's history. Not everyone who has claimed to be Xtian was a hero, and the story of Hypatia and the Library deserves to be told.
ScienceWinsEveryTime 1 year ago
@ScienceWinsEveryTime Well, it should be told objectively and fairly, and not in a way that demonizes religious believers. And friend, I rarely "goose-step." I'm quite sure that you're not insinuating for a moment that Christians are fascists.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo No, Christians are not Fascists, but an individual of any religious stripe could be a fascist as well. What I think is trying to be said in this film is that one of our greatest cities, peopled by a citizenry that would have been one united group in ethnic & cultural terms, was torn apart by religious hatred and zealotry. It didn't single out Christians, it was the violent, insistent self-righteousness of each sect that led to the loss of a great island of history and knowledge.
ScienceWinsEveryTime 1 year ago
@ScienceWinsEveryTime I put "Christians" in scare quotes precisely because anyone who acts with senseless violence is, by definition, a bad Christian. Jesus told us explicitly to love even our enemies. What I'm reacting to here is the clear insinuation that Christianity, by its nature, is extremist, hateful and violent. And I completely stand by my claim that Hypatia was killed for political more than for religious reasons.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo Well, It is never really just one thing with humans. The movie does blend many facets of human motivation.
adstanra 1 year ago
Friar Barron complains that the movie was misleading when it showed Jews being attacked by Saint Cyril of Alexandria, and when it presented some Christians as violent. And yet the Catholic Encyclopedia itself (nihil obstat, imprimatur) states that "A mob led by a lector, named Peter, dragged her to a church and tore her flesh with potsherds till she died" and that Cyril "drove out" the Jews. Non sequitor, too: Augustine's Neoplatonism doesn't imply that Christians didn't murder Hypatia.
gerede1 1 year ago
@gerede1 Friend, listen to the video a little more carefully.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo I did. The video states that Hypatia "was put to death, supposedly by a mob of [finger quotes] 'Christians'" -- in other words, the video states that Hypatia was not killed by Christians. Then it states that Hypatia "was in fact a philosopher; she was in fact an intellectual; she was killed by a mob in 415, but almost everything else about the story is false." The implication: that she was not killed by Christians. Nowhere is it admitted that she was killed by Christians.
gerede1 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo Also: Barron gives the impression that "Agora" presents _all_ Christians, and _only_ Christians, as violent. In fact, the movie depicts violent pagans, Jews, _and_ Christians. Fr. Barron complains that, "at the time, a number of Christian bishops were in [Hypatia's] circle of friends; Christians attended her classes with great enthusiasm" -- but that's shown in the film! It did not portray all Christians as "mouth-breathing [...] primitives."
gerede1 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo PS: John, Bishop of Nikiu: Hypatia "was devoted at all times to magic [and] beguiled many people through Satanic wiles." A Christian mob guided by Peter who "was a perfect believer in all respects in Jesus Christ" "dragged her along till they brought her to the great church[...] And they tore off her clothing and dragged her [till they brought her] through the streets of the city till she died. And they carried her to a place named Cinaron, and they burned her body with fire."
gerede1 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo PPS If 'Fr" = Father and not Friar, my apologies.
gerede1 1 year ago
The world says to the members of the Church, "You all suck!" And the members say, "We said it first."
Oreosforlunch 1 year ago
But still, good video. And most of your videos are interesting and insightful and I'me enjoying watching them.
I agree, you should stand your ground and Christians should set the record straight. But half of that is recognizing the gravity of hundreds of years of pure dickery on your part. Acknowledging the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusaders, and the Salem Witch Trials (not a crime specifically for you, but in the broader Christian context) is not the same as recognizing the implications of it.
MobiusCoin 1 year ago
Would you like the mention that Christians are depicted in the movie as being part of Hypatia's inner circle?
Would you like the admit that the Crusades were nothing but a glorified turf war carried out under a veil of faith? As if the murders committed by the Crusaders when they entered Jerusalem for the first time was any less abhorrent simply because they were more "political" than "religious".
But props to you for having the balls to cite Origen in a video about defending orthodoxy. LOL
MobiusCoin 1 year ago
@MobiusCoin his point was that there was a long tradition of Neo-Platonism in the Church. So if people have the idea that Hypatia was targeted because of her learning or because knowledge, reason, etc. were associated with "paganism" and this was the reason for her death (as if Christians were "anti-intellectual") then bringing up Neoplatonists like Origen and Augustine disproves that notion. There were other female philosophers as well who were not killed.
XSC3 1 year ago
With all due respect, your logic is invalid. I am not an atheist nor a christian, but claiming that the christians were only retaliating against some prior violence they suffered (of course, they would never initiate violence) shows your own biased "gap-filling".The fact is that we don't know who started the violence, it could be any one of the factions. And relying on a Christian author to tell the true facts also does not help with the bias. Why not rely on a neutral author then?
Danieltorrey 1 year ago
@Danieltorrey we have a sense of who started the violence from the historical records. anything else is mere speculation. The movie has a scene where the Paraboloni (portrayed as Christian zealots in the film) stone a crowd of Jews on the sabbath in a theater, causing the Jews to retaliate some years later by stoning Christians in a church after tricking them into thinking the church was on fire.
XSC3 1 year ago
@Danieltorrey what really happened according to the historical records is that Cyril had sent a spy to a Jewish gathering. He was discovered and flogged by Orestes. Cyril protested. Then the Jews carried out the mass murder of Christians in the fake fire incident. So the movie was done in such a way as to show that the Christians started the fighting between Christians and Jews. The Pagans are portrayed as being the first ones to start violence with the Christians, after their gods were insulted
XSC3 1 year ago
@Danieltorrey I think what the viewer is lead to believe (after several characters and the text hint at this) is that Christianity was a banned sect FOR A REASON... because if you let them be free and get too numerous, and start to have power, they'll start being violent and persecuting everyone else. so even though the Jews and Pagans are seen as violent, their violence is sort of "understandable" because Christians really are a threat (that was my impression).
XSC3 1 year ago
@Danieltorrey that said, I think we're supposed to see the "Christians" in the movie as modern Muslims, the "Pagans" are Western Christians (and the Jews are still Jews). So the person watching is supposed to see the "Christians" and think they all ought to be locked up... except maybe Bishop Synesius... who nevertheless thinks the solution to everything is to join the Christian [mob] (he encourages Hypatia to be baptized). the real Synesius seems to have been abandoned by and died before her
XSC3 1 year ago
I think you need to watch the movie again. The movie didn't unfairly attack christians. It attacked the pagans, the christians, and the Jews. He put the blame on all of them. And he wasn't attacking the moderates. The movie just attacked the fundamentalists like Cyril, while portraying the moderate christians and pagans as the heroes.
caffingdu 1 year ago
Thanks for the clarification, Friar! The Catholic church would NEVER torture and kill people who don't believe!
bjjolley 1 year ago
@bjjolley No come on, don't be snarky. Have I ever denied that certain Christians have done bad things? It just proves that they are bad Christians.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
We don't know exactly what happened to Hypatia or the Library.
If you look at Christian reaction to other points of view, however, especially with regard science, from current anti-abortion to creationism in schools; the middle ages (Copernicus, Galileo; burning witches ) all the way to antiquity, its not hard to connect the dots and see a trend. Science challenges the very foundation of religions. Through science religion seems silly.
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun how is being anti-abortion "anti-science"? surely you're not saying the few abortion clinic bombers and killers of abortion doctors represent a greater trend? Amenbar's sermon uses classic anti-Christian narratives, but his real target is Islam, which has been far, far, more violent and "anti-modern" than any Christian group, even our worst example (ie: Westboro Baptist church)
XSC3 1 year ago
@XSC3 I never said, anti-abortion is anti-science. Anti-abortion is usually a Christian belief. Christians will defend their beliefs, which to this day scientific discoveries have refuted. In the past defending christian beliefs meant killing people with any contrary assertions. And This has been a trend.
I'm not going to split hairs between Islam and Christianity. They both were never static religions, and are very diverse as well as similar within themselves and between themselves.
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun you used it in the same list with the claim of "anti-science" so I was curious. Thanks for clarifying.
I'm curious which "Christian beliefs" science has refuted. I hope you realize that the "Conflict Thesis" is rejected by modern historians. And "killing people with contrary thesis" is the trend for Christians? How can you say that?
XSC3 1 year ago
@XSC3 I also never used the word ''anti-science". Most early scientists were in fact Christian. Most people will follow a religion for conformity, or because of the need fr cultural identity not because they believe in the dogma. Science is merely a methodology for finding NATURAL explanations for phenomenon. Religion does not have natural explanations, they have super-natural explanations ..aka magic. Evolution, cosmology geological findings all are contrary to biblical explanations.
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun "Most early scientists were in fact Christian." Except for those pesky Greeks who were doing it first...and then those pesky Muslims who were doing it at the zenith of their civilization while the Christians were scratching on animal skins. If you mean post dark ages Europe, yes those scientists were mostly Christian. But then most PEOPLE were Christian as well. and a non-Christian of that period is nearly a contradiction in terms in Europe.
CapeandCowl 1 year ago
@CapeandCowl but those "pesky greeks" were either polytheists or monotheists (platonists). those pesky muslims were dogmatic theists as well. so if you want to say all science doesn't come from Christian minds, fine, be my guest. but don't say there's nothing in common (or that it's atheism). the "dark ages" are largely a myth, actually and were created by the fall of the empire in the west.
XSC3 1 year ago
@XSC3 o.O I did not say Christians cannot do science. Not once did I say so. I said science is manifestly NOT a Christian creation. It isn't. Science doesn't require it. This is a just fact. Science gets along very nicely without it.
CapeandCowl 1 year ago
@CapeandCowl the point being made is that "science" is not incompatible with the Christian faith. there really wasn't a time when it was. the "conflict thesis" is an outdated theory. and we can't project the views of a few modern fundamentalists onto an entire religion.
XSC3 1 year ago
@XSC3 um, you asked me why I thought Jesus' pacifism is stupid and naive. I did so and you just changed subjects...
CapeandCowl 1 year ago
@XSC3 "And "killing people with contrary thesis" is the trend for Christians? How can you say that? "
well lets look at:
Crusades, colonization (Aztecs, N.American natives, Autralian and many many other aboriginal ppl. ), Witch hunts, persecution of early scientists. Inter-christian denominational wars (2 many to recite). You can argue that
that there were other reasons BESIDES faith that prompted these actions .. and your right. Religion was a big contributing factor.
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun the way you worded it before, it sounded like you were saying that the Church just sat around until they heard somebody had a different opinion about life and then said "well we need to go kill them now" that's what I was objecting to. The Crusades were not fought for that reason, neither was European/American colonization. you could say it had to do with SOME scientists. (Giogordno Bruno for example was killed for his heresies, not his scientific theories).
XSC3 1 year ago
@XSC3 Heresies .. Scientific theories .. what if a scientific theory happens to be a heresy?
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun the wars of religion were fought over which denomination the king belonged to (which would determine what the state faith was). so I guess in that case you could say it was over ideas, but it wasn't just "you hold different beliefs than me? then you have to die" it was over which king you swore allegiance to. of course you could define allegiance to another sect (regardless of its beliefs) as treason, so in essence it came out to censorship, from a certain point of view
XSC3 1 year ago
@XSC3 OK. However, isn't killing the ultimate form of censorship? Dead men tell no tales.
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun you can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.
XSC3 1 year ago
@XSC3 Isn't that my original point? Killing people.
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun I think in most cases the faith was a convenient excuse after the fact, but in some cases sure, it was a motivating factor (as in the wars of religion). but you could say that a king wanting to keep money/land that otherwise would have gone to monasteries or the Pope, and the ability to pick bishops that he could control would be strong motivating factors to declare himself head of the church and fight whoever disagreed
XSC3 1 year ago
@XSC3 Sure. Christianity might of been used as a weapon to gain power. Can Jainism be used in the same way, (where their core belief is peace and non-violence instead of conversion and self propagation)?
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun I don't think it has, but I don't see any reason why Jainism could not. We could have an Amish dictator as well. There's absolutely nothing stopping that from happening since many other examples have occurred of people twisting or going against the teachings of their religion. there are those who are so committed to peace that they've resorted to violence to achieve that peace. so why not? all it takes is time and opportunity
XSC3 1 year ago
@XSC3 you REALLY think an totally explicitly pacifistic system like Jainism could lead to a dictatorship? History is not on your side.
CapeandCowl 1 year ago
@XSC3 You fail to see the main diff. between Islam/Christian doctrine and that of Jainism. Unlike the former, the core belief of Jains is not conversion and Jain propagation. Thats why there are Billions of Christians and Muslims and maybe .. I don't know 12 or 13 Jains in the world.
kennegun 1 year ago
Comment removed
ScienceWinsEveryTime 1 year ago
Comment removed
ScienceWinsEveryTime 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kennegun I've made this same point... Christian and Muslim doctrines have attributes that ensure that they are repeated and propagated. They are very successful memes in that sense, even if the doctrines are manipulative. Jainism, while being based on principles equal to or greater than the others in terms of morality, is not so good at getting itself spread around and copied in the minds of others. The practical value of a principle and the success of a meme are two different things.
ScienceWinsEveryTime 1 year ago
@kennegun the witch hunts weren't over conflicting theories, it was paranoia that there were people out there with evil powers who were out to destroy society, who needed to be stopped. of course the hysteria could be used to steal people's property (accuse them of witchcraft to get their stuff), scapegoating, etc. The Inquisition was over Jews and Muslims who had converted to Christianity "suspected" of secretly practicing their old religion (insincerity, linked to disloyalty)
XSC3 1 year ago
@XSC3 Why would they SECRETLY practice their religion if Christians were tolerable?
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun there's a critique here but it's not the one you're getting at. Being a Muslim or a Jew openly, no problem (though Christians will try to convert you). It was if you pretended to become a Christian but secretly continued to practice Islam or Judaism (conversion for social advantage). the real critique is that there was such pressure to conform that people would fake it (and then others would seek to punish that fakery)
XSC3 1 year ago
@XSC3 Sorry, I don't see the relevance of your argument. It just points to injustice and discrimination under religious law.
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun "We don't know exactly what happened to Hypatia or the Library."
We have the historical records and we have speculation. A movie could be made following the records and go with that. the earliest records don't call her a "witch" or a sexual deviant. they don't portray her gender, learning or religion as the reason for her murder (in accounts which condemn the violence)
XSC3 1 year ago
All I can find about Ken Ham is that he's a young earth creationist who opened a 27 million dollar creation museum in Kentucky a few years ago, and from a quote on Wikipedia, he appreciates that his wife is submissive...? So, I'm not sure to what exactly you were referring in his case.
laytf7 1 year ago
Do you feel current pagans and/or atheists have the
same reason to feel offended as you for this unflattering
portrayal showing them as apathetic tyrants?
acorrales1380 1 year ago
The violence that occurred between the Jews and the
Christians is an accurate and integral part of this story.
How would you have it be addressed in the film? Do you
object to the scene where the Jews stone Christians to death.
Or how the oppresion towards the mostly christian (slave)
class imposed on by the ruling Pagans? Hypatia herself is
potrayed having slips of being abusive towards her Christian
slaves.
acorrales1380 1 year ago
Christians are also portrayed as being custodians of the
sick who are unattended by the ruling (Pagan) class and not as cockroaches.
acorrales1380 1 year ago
@acorrales1380 excellent rebuttals. :-)
CapeandCowl 1 year ago
@CapeandCowl Thank you, CapeandCowl. Father fails in seeing is the movie actually did spread the blame around for the conflicts that arose during that time to the various factions. This story is a warning from history how conflicts like these cost all of humanity. Its not just some outright comdemnation of one religion. I think he's just having a hard time accepting that the faith he dedicated his life to isn't as clean and unblemished as he wishes everyone to believe.
acorrales1380 1 year ago
@acorrales1380 exactly. He misses the point that Hypatia is trying to get her students to see, as she says "we are all brothers" because they are joined by something that transcends religious dogmas and beliefs in gods. This priest plainly excludes parts of the film that don't fit with his Christians are victims of everyone mythology.
CapeandCowl 1 year ago
@CapeandCowl and, as you say, he ignore that Christians are not uniformly shown as bad. We see Christians feeding the hungry, for example. The film is complex and well thought through. The priest here, on the other than, has a rather selective and piecemeal view of it.
CapeandCowl 1 year ago
@acorrales1380 Oh spare me the condescension! Watch the movie one more time and tell me honestly that the filmmaker is sympathetic to Christianity or the least bit sensitive to the complexity of the historical situation. And if you doubt my reading, take a good long look at the filmmaker's biography. He is on the public record as deeply anti-Christian.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo lets see. In the film who starts the bloodshed? Christians? No. Its the pagans. Who then perpetuates the violence? Christians and Jews? Who defends the rights of all three sides in the conflict? Hypatia! Are Christians not in her inner circle? Did Christians not, once they had political power, do to others what the Romans had done to them. Barron is just blowing hot air either deliberately or the result of a very poor memory.
CapeandCowl 1 year ago
@CapeandCowl I do agree when Christianity was politicized and institutionalized, there were Christian groups, especially the Catholic church that perpetuated and encouraged the persecution of other human beings. I do not disagree or try to explain it away. I think it is tragic when ANY social/religious group of humans attacks and kills another. If you can't convert them, kill them is thankfully not an ideology we see among Christian's today (that I know of), but we do in other religions.
laytf7 1 year ago
Christians are also portrayed as being custodians of the
sick who are unattended by the ruling (Pagan) class as
portrayed in the following scene and not as cockroaches:
Christians are also portrayed as being custodians of the
sick who are unattended by the ruling (Pagan) class as
portrayed in the following scene and not as cockroaches:
acorrales1380 1 year ago
Some counter points to your video, Father.
-You refer to Carl Sagan as being melodramatic, yet what
would you consider your hand motions throughout your
whole explanation?
-It was explained in the movie that it was not the actual
Library of Alexandria that was set ablazed, but it was in
fact the Serapeum that you refer to. The history of the
older library is explained being lost in "the great fire"
in a line in the movie.
acorrales1380 1 year ago
Hypatia was from the neo-platanist school of philosphy,
however her works contributed to mathematics and astronomy.
Synesius of Cyrene credits her with being the inventor of
the astrolabe in one of his letters (even though this claim
is refutable).
Her having close relations with the Christian community
is potrayed vividly with her relationship with Synesius
as well as not allowing her Christian students to be
punished during the sacking of the Serapeum.
acorrales1380 1 year ago
Comment removed
acorrales1380 1 year ago
I didn't make the claim. It is clearly written in the Bible. All I did was show you a verse that is clear on the subject.. There is such a thing as repentance, and forgiveness for ALL people if they accept God's gift of salvation. Even someone as bad as Hitler can be redeemed. Ultimately it is up to God to judge the hearts of men, yet with true repentance comes a change in the person from the inside out. They would begin bearing good fruit, which would be discernible by other people.
laytf7 1 year ago
@laytf7 well the appeal to authority is a poor argument. The fact is that what it allows you to do is claim that your interpretation of the bible is the only true one. So I ask you again where the Purtians Christian or not? Was Saint Cyril a Christian or not? With what warrant do you claim to know the meaning and intent of the bible better than someone like Cyril?
CapeandCowl 1 year ago
@CapeandCowl The Puritan movement started out with good intentions, however I assume you refer to the New England Puritans and the Salem Witch Trials. Wikipedia: "Puritans in colonial America...were among the most radical Puritans and [their] social experiment took the form of a theocracy." They were a sort of rabid fundamentalist group. They began accusing and hanging people. Any who supported the wrongdoing were not following Christ's teachings. They judged people & took God's role away.
laytf7 1 year ago
@laytf7 well there you go. Puritans, as despicable as they were, were still Christians. Popes, even when they do, as they often do, morally and ethically suspect things, are still Christians. All you are doing is making a pretty facile argument in order to claim that no "true" Christian would ever ever do a bad thing. To claim that Cyril was not a "true" Christian is simply ridiculous. Of course he was. He just did things you don't like.
CapeandCowl 1 year ago
@CapeandCowl A personal relationship with God is an individual matter and you can't say all Puritans went to heaven (and I'm not saying all of them DIDN'T), What are you implying by saying they are Christians? For you that means anyone who calls themself a Christian is going to heaven. It doesn't matter to you WHAT that person does, or if they act like a Christian. You ignore things Jesus said about following him, in the Bible, because that's convenient and it makes you feel better.
laytf7 1 year ago
@laytf7 correct labels, statements of belief are MEANINGLESS. What you claim to believe is meaningless. what you do is what matters. However, you are totally hung on labels. And dude, I do not believe in a heaven. So I don't think that you are going to someplace when you die. You're just dead. What I am saying is you need your label of Christian to be pure and so therefore, reject any Christian who does horrible things and say they are not "true"believers. Which is patent nonsense.
CapeandCowl 1 year ago
@CapeandCowl I agree what man DOES is what matters, and I have been repeatedly saying this with the Bible's verses about good and bad fruit. I don't like the label. It seems pretty meaningless when anyone can adopt it. What bothers me about the label is that it lumps all people together who simply believe in God/Jesus, regardless of their actions. I don't need the label, and I don't claim it. If someone asks, then I tell them I am a follower of Jesus, not a member of a man made institution.
laytf7 1 year ago
@laytf7 semantics. A follower of Jesus IS a Christian. Hello?!
CapeandCowl 1 year ago
@CapeandCowl I've already explained to you why I disagree with such a label. Also, one of the biggest tenets of Jesus' teachings is forgiveness (70x7). This DEFINITELY goes against human nature, but it is what Christ taught. Do you honestly believe that if EVERYONE tried to follow the teachings of Jesus that there would BE suffering? Of course not, that is why after Jesus comes back, when evil has been vanquished, there will be peace on earth; the only ones left will be those who believe.
laytf7 1 year ago
@laytf7 again you avoid the question. What would have happened if we had followed the Christian notion of not opposing evil and turning the other cheek in WW2? Its a simple question.
CapeandCowl 1 year ago
@CapeandCowl No one knows what would have happened. More people would have died, but no one knows if it would have been more than the number of soldiers the Allies lost fighting. Why aren't we out fighting every gov't that is currently persecuting and killing entire groups of people? We fought some in Vietnam, Bosnia, and now in Iraq, but we only involve ourselves when it's politically expedient or makes a difference for our country.
laytf7 1 year ago
@laytf7 seriously. that is your answer? Less allied soldiers would have died? Unreal.
As a "follower of Jesus" would you have opposed Hitler?
CapeandCowl 1 year ago
@CapeandCowl No I SAID no one knows if more people would have died (with no intervention) than the number of Allied soldiers who ended up getting killed. You don't know what would have happened either. Maybe Hitler would have died and the Nazi regime would have fallen apart. You can't say what the outcome would have been, that's preposterous. FTR, I'm against persecution and murder, not defending oneself or one's country (in certain circumstances). And I'm glad we stopped ALL the Axis powers.
laytf7 1 year ago
@laytf7 Let me ask you for a plain yes or no answer because you keep ducking it:
As a self described follower of Christ, referencing Jesus clear instruction to turn the other cheek and not oppose an evil person, would you agree in fighting a Hitler, or similar tyrant, by force of arms or not? YES OR NO?
CapeandCowl 1 year ago
@CapeandCowl According to Gill: 'Turn the other cheek' "is not [referring to]...any sort of evil, not of...sin...bad actions..false doctrines, which are to be opposed; nor of the evil one, Satan, who is to be resisted; but of an evil man, an injurious one, who has done us an injury. We must not render evil for evil...but...a man may lawfully defend himself, and endeavour to secure himself from injuries; [he]...may appear to the civil magistrate...; but...not...make use of private revenge."
laytf7 1 year ago
@laytf7 rhetorical nonsense. Jesus does not say in the sermon on the Mount "do not resist an evil person....except under the following circumstances...". Jesus gives no instructions for when it is morally permissible to do violence upon another person. Jesus was not a Shaolin monk, who was a pacifist save for particular circumstances. Jesus' instruction is plain as day. Don't fight back, don't resist. Leave it up to god. Which is hopelessly stupid and naive.
CapeandCowl 1 year ago
@CapeandCowl so you're saying that Christians aren't following Jesus (which is bad) but if they did follow Jesus, they would be "hopelessly stupid and naive"? Maybe then the Islamic idea is better... when you are the minority be peaceful. when you are the majority and powerful then you can throw your weight around. don't fight, unless you are threatened, and then crush your enemies until you're in charge.
XSC3 1 year ago
@XSC3 No. I said the notion of turning the other cheek and not opposing an evil person - the core of Jesus' political and moral ideas - is hopelessly naive and stupid. It would mean if taken seriously, you would not fight a Hitler, or a Bin Ladin and or any other evil person who seeks to destroy civilization. you would stand aside and watch and evil people do horrible things. You would not so much lift a figure to protect the innocent from those who would prey on them. Its an immoral idea.
CapeandCowl 1 year ago
@CapeandCowl so you'd be in favor of the just war theory embraced by most Christians in history then, rather than strict pacifism.
XSC3 1 year ago
@XSC3 just war theory is more in line with what I would accept. It is worth noting, however, there is nothing Jesus ever said that even reflects just war. The scriptures are very clear on it. He says, without any caveats, without any exceptions, do not oppose an evil person. He does not say you can oppose them if they are REALLY bad. You just don't oppose them. A Christian who subscribes to a just war concept is contradicting, clearly, the words they deem to be of their perfect master.
CapeandCowl 1 year ago
@CapeandCowl I wouldn't call this ducking it: "FTR (for the record), I'm against persecution and murder, not defending oneself or one's country (in certain circumstances). And I'm glad we stopped ALL the Axis powers." Since you ask for 'yes' or 'no', then my answer is YES.
laytf7 1 year ago
@laytf7 Then how to you call yourself a "follower of Jesus"? You condemned all Christians who you deem not following the bible well enough. Those who did bad things are not, in your view, Christians. Therefore, if you are willing to take up arms to fight a tyrant, how then do you figure you are obeying Jesus's fanatically naive pacifist ideas?
CapeandCowl 1 year ago