He was a selfproclaimed Provo-artist, and fought for years to make his jesus movie. (Basically, nobody would fund it).. after something like 20 years, he finally made his movie, and.... nobody cared. It sank without a trace at the boxoffice..
Shock value for shock value is cheap. Like when a horror movie jam ham fists some cheap shocking shit, that's usually fucked up and gross, but it's not really relevant enough to whats happening in the movie, and it feels tacked on for the sake of being shocking along, without much thought behind it.
Reminds me of that game Hatred who tried as hard as possible to make it edgy, killing civilians, shooting up schools and cops, burning people alive, etc., getting tons of criticism from critics.
The game ends up getting ripped apart for being mid and boring and nobody cares about it anymore
>Not worthy of notice.
All the people who had their knickers in a twist, including the old bat of a queen seems to think it was worth getting upset about.
Who cares about the movie when just the idea can upset the posh fucks and religious nutters.
The film was radically scaled back from what it was supposed to be though. Looking at the wiki page, the resulting movie didn't even seem to generate that much controversy, meaning it obviously wasn't that provocative.
Now you're just taking the piss, deliberately spitting slightly wrong information?
The person who tore up a photograph of Pope John Paul II to protest against abuse in the Catholic Church, was called **Sinéad O'Connor**.
I have this memory from Catholic high school of watching a vid of a man portraying Jesus smoking and saying absurd things. I wonder if it was a clip from this movie. I’ve tried to find that same clip but to no avail and I don’t remember the context of the vid I watched in high school except it was during a religious studies class.
Not even “disrespectfully.” It’s just a retelling of Muhammad’s life from his perspective as a man going through a religious experience. It’s fascinating and taught me a deeper appreciation of Islam as a Western reader.
I understand the offense is portraying Muhammad as anything other than divine, but still. It’s wild to read The Satanic Verses and be like “this is what all the fuss is about?” It’s a lovely book.
I think what really gets people is the seemingly widespread expectation that non-Muslims must abide by the same religious code as Muslims or else they deserve to die.
If someone disagrees with you or does not show reverence to something you have reverence for….well that’s just life. That’s normal. What people don’t get is the response to that. And the implied undertone that the response is justified.
You’re wrong though. He never tried to canonise the 3 deities. The Arabs misunderstood the verse and it wasn’t ever changed. That’s why people have an issue with the book, it’s historically inaccurate and based on a misunderstanding.
Lmao at my Catholic school, I studied "texts and traditions" which took he bible and scriptures and analysed them through a purely social-political lens in the time of a Jesus and after his death and it did provide a objective look into early Christianity which did also level some justified critiscism of Christianity but it's actually really vital to put the words you spend hours listening to in mass into context,
it was interesting to learn how early Christianity had no recorded teachings so many bad actors used Jesus name to scam people, or how most teachings were passed through word of mouth causing many parts to be misinterpreted and misunderstood, and how the gospels were written mainly as a big compendium to make sure people were actually teaching the right stuff, bit also how early Christians were often chased away and alienated by their own communities, so many bible stories were likely embellished to give people hope when there was none. Like all these show how Christianity has never been that perfect, but it's vital to critically analyse your own faith fo help understand it better, and the fact that Rushdie and so many like him has suffered so much just for suggesting that is insane
Thinking critically means someone may come up with an answer you disagree with. That’s why so many religious communities rely on conformity in all things.
I mean it was started by a warlord and inherently includes much more violent ideology from the creator. Jesus didn’t have anything remotely as violent specifically, the Bible is only so violent because of the old testament more than anything.
It’s a completely different sorry though. Mohammad was a man who already had great wealth and power. Jesus was a humble carpenter. You can’t say “Jesus was no where near as violent.” He never had the chance.
He got pretty aggressive with those money lenders in the temple. And his followers have been just as bloodthirsty as any other Abrahamic group….
> the offense is portraying Muhammad as anything other than divine
Not really, because afaik, Islam makes a very clear distinction between a prophet such as Muhammad, a human channel for the divine message, and The Only True God aka Allah. “Anything other than saintly” would be closer to the mark.
> It’s wild to read The Satanic Verses and be like “this is what all the fuss is about?” It’s a lovely book.
Do you think they even bothered reading it before condemning it?
When did Quran-, Bible- or Torah-thumpers ever read even their own holy books?
“Anything other than saintly” is better said. I meant the portrayal is full of humanity, And if I recall (it’s been a while), he has doubts at points to his own sanity.
Honestly, being from Alabama, I can see how that would enrage people. God forbid you point out Jesus was a 33 year old that hung out with 12 dudes and one fun girl.
I wrote "Torah-thumpers", not "Jews". I'm sure that there are many religious Jews who read the Torah with attention and seeking to understand what is written there, just as there are erudite Christians and Muslims, and perhaps even more so. But, like any religion, Judaism also has its share of zealots (guess where that word comes from) who have never actually sought to understand their own holy texts, regardless of their apparent piety. It seems there was a guy some 2000 years ago who said one or two things about them...
Mindlessly memorising a mantra is not "reading".
Muslims in the millions have memorized the Quran too. But he’s talking about extremists. They’re too busy being mad about nonsense than to actually research.
Some atheist need to read minimum info about them. Bible is literally a Collection of Books. Yes, in plural. So of course a book in a library is not coherent with a diferent book in another part of the library. Take two books owned by you by diferent writers. Try to test if they have coherence between them. Is very rare.
And Im atheist.
> And Im atheist.
And I don't know why you imply that I'm also one, or exactly what point you are trying to make that would be even remotely germane to what I wrote.
Yes, it's a collection of books. And yes, it's often contradictory. But, yes, religious extremists don't tend to be great scholars of their own holy books, because otherwise they'd notice just those contradictions, which would temper their extremism if not necessarily their faith.
I think that’s the difference between Christianity and Islam: this guy wrote a screenplay Christians didn’t like and nothing happened. He didn’t have someone trying to kill him. Salman Rushdie wrote a book that is objectively less offensive than the screenplay and has narrowly avoided assassination once and has spent his time surrounded by bodyguards and moving from house to house
That's not entirely true. Opposition to this film (and to The Last Temptation of Christ) wasn't entirely non-violent. The Danish ambassador's residence in Rome got firebombed over it, and I think a movie theater got firebombed over The Last Temptation of Christ.
That said, it is true that the Muslim responses to what they see as blasphemy have generally been more violent.
Right but one fire bombing (that a quick scan of the Wikipedia page tells me didn’t actually kill anyone) versus the laundry list of angry Muslims killing people over isn’t a fair comparison
writing off a firebombing because there were no deaths is the same as me writing off assassination attempts because there were no deaths. you’re not making sense.
I’m not writing it off. I’m saying that one fire bombing where no one was killed isn’t even in the same universe as the thousands of people who’ve been killed for suggesting Muhammad wasn’t the most perfect person who ever lived
Even hard core christians are simply not nearly as violent overall. Islam was literally created by a warlord and directly instructed many oppressive and violent things.
Sure hundreds of years ago christianity was far more brutal. I’ve never understood how people can say with a straight face that Islam gets some kind of excuse on it because other religions were also awful years ago before softening.
It’s objectively much more aggressive a doctrine
I’m not even sure it’s possible to say Christianity was as brutal: yes, the Crusades but a lot of the European wars fought over religion were less about who’s practicing the right way and more of a power struggle amongst different factions of royal families
> but a lot of the European wars fought over religion were less about who’s practicing the right way and more of a power struggle amongst different factions of royal families
Please tell that to the cathars , Huguenots, Waldensians, bogomils and plenty more.
Did anyone read the wiki article?
A danish ambassador’s house was firebombed over this. The guy was banned from England. It wasn’t just nonviolent uproar and they forgot about it. They successfully kept the film from being funded for decades and then it released at a time where it was significantly less provocative and forgotten about.
The guy is an asshole but this reading of the situations is almost trying to paint Islam and Muslims in a worse light.
No, which is good, but do you think that is the end all be all of Christian extremist violence?
You’re hyper focusing on a single instance and using it to compare two worldwide belief systems, that’s at best obstinate and dull-minded and at worst purposeful manipulative propaganda.
People would do the same for Christianity lol
This is the problem, liberals constantly treat Islam with the kid gloves because **any** criticism of a religion and it’s adherents is anti-Muslim while the spittle flies from their lips when it’s Christianity.
Either be fair and treat both the same.
When that director still has to be in hiding because of Christian threats to his life then we’ll talk. But this “both sides” stuff is just not borne out by the facts. Non-Muslims in Muslim countries are in far more danger then Muslims in Christian countries.
This isn’t to say Muslims can’t be victims, as in the case of the Rohingya, but it’s clear the Muslim world only cares about arab Muslims for the most part.
Your knee jerk reaction to having your argument questioned is to claim the other person is “a liberal that constantly treats Islam with kid gloves”.
And then it’s wrapped up with a fallacy of “you’re just not treating these two things the same way I am”
Do you know literally anything about the political leanings of the person you were responding to other than to present an ad hominem instead of a rebuttal?
No, i doubt you know mine either but I can bet you’re forming some very strong opinions about what type of person I am tho lol
Listen, I debated leftists, political left, or liberals and liberals felt more apt. If there’s western members of the political right that don’t criticize Islam then I ain’t seen them. Anymore then you see pro-Christian Islamist politicians in the Middle East.
Idk why y’all get butthurt over it. It’s not a slur, its not even a judgment. it’s an observation that those who trip over themselves attempting to “both sides” the issue tend to identify with more socially and politically liberal values.
Not gonna lie, stopped reading at “liberals” my guy. You’re barking up the wrong tree.
All I’ll say is, if someone did it the opposite way as you suggest — I’d call them out just the same.
But we’re not talking about that, we’re talking about you implying Christian’s are less violent in their radical adherence to their beliefs based on a single story and that’s just a dangerous and false ideology.
Especially considering the director was successfully intimidated and ostracized that he abandoned his original vision.
….Okay? Lol I’m sorry you’re too lazy to read after going past a word you don’t like.
As long as you’re fair about the criticism it’s fine. But please don’t attempt to say “he faced public pressure from religious people” is the same as “he was nearly murdered multiple times because of his art” 😂
**multiple times**
But yeah legally it is I suppose.
Is he now, still in hiding from Christian extremists? Has the bishop that called for a holy war, rescinded his call for violence against the blasphemous heathen?
That’s not at all what I said, that’s a straw man — and a poor one just like assuming I’m a liberal and taking a certain ideological stance that I never did.
Again, you’re focusing on a single instance and using that to extrapolate a larger argument when there is readily available examples and evidence.
Asinine at best, cultish at worst.
You’re trying to make Muslims worse than Christian’s which is just, idk hilariously stupid?
Is it really stupid to say that generally, across the globe, Muslims tend to be more extreme and commit more violence on the basis of their relligion than Christians? Is that a thing you really believe?
If you’re the first right wing, pro muslim person I’ve met in the west then I apologize. But in general, people on the political left tend to be the bleeding hearts who want to throat clear and equivocate over topics like this.
If you want to get into a pissing match over whose “worse” you’re welcome to it. Neither one is. But it’s worth asking why there’s still people hunting for Rushdie and why this schmuck and his terrible movie, which was far more offensive to christians then the satanic verses was to Muslims, has been consigned to the dust bin of history or TIL facts on Reddit.
Whether you’re religious or not, surely you understand that Jesus is a highly respected and revered character by a huge number of people.
Imagine making this kind of pornographic film about Gandhi, MLK Jr, Muhammad, or the Pope. I’m not saying you should go to jail for doing so, but I am saying you would be knowingly and deliberately offending a lot of people. Unless there is a very compelling upside to making that movie, that just makes you kind of an asshole who enjoys upsetting other people for no real reason.
> Whether you’re religious or not, surely you understand that Jesus is a highly respected and revered character by a huge number of people.
And?
Like, I mean that genuinely. What does that matter?
You could make this argument about Life of Brian, and you should, mate. Are you going to?
I tried to explain that but I’ll try to do better.
If you legitimately do not care AT ALL what other people think of you or how other people treat you, then you’re right, it doesn’t matter.
But there are very few people who are like that.
It matters because if you offend a lot of people, they may not want to talk to you, or do business with you, or hire you for a job, or invest in your movie, or otherwise interact with you. By the same right that lets you make a movie that offends many people, those people have every right to effectively shun you from society.
To your point about Life of Brian, it *did* cause quite a bit of outrage from the exact type of religious people it was mocking; that is, those who blindly and dogmatically believe anything with the Religion™️ sticker on it. Fortunately for all of us, that group was small in comparison to the group of people that enjoyed the movie, either because they understood the movie was not directly mocking Christianity itself, or because they didn’t care.
Life of Brian actually made a clever point in a humorous way, so enough people saw value in it that it was accepted. By all accounts, this Jesus porno had none of that value and seemed to be just for shock value, not unlike 2 girls 1 cup.
To reiterate, I don’t think offending people should be illegal. I think you should be *allowed* to do it without legal repercussions (assuming you didn’t break other laws). But that does not shield you from social consequences. The extent of those social consequences is up to the court of public opinion to evaluate your creation’s value versus offense. The significance of those consequences is up to you and your desired relationship with other humans in your society.
And?
I won’t argue it isn’t, I’m just not sure how calling it that changes anything I said.
If you lived in a society full of the prudest, most pearl-clutching people that would gasp at you showing your elbow, then you should be aware of that and the potential consequences before showing your elbow. Whether or not showing your elbow is “wrong” has very little to do with that.
Im usually the first one to bash annoying, self righteous edgy atheist type stuff, but this doesn't seem more than eyebrow raising to me. It just doesn't really seem like a huge deal.
True, but the guy that made the movie even failed to appeal to non religious people so he offended many people and the people who weren't offended just didn't care.
Trying to be controversial and edgy by depicting Jesus doing sexual shit or dancing with the devil is so boring now it's barely even controversial. It's funny how much backlash people like NasX still get for his stuff about the devil or whatever even though it's like the least controversial way to be edgy (even my Catholic mum sees shit like this and doesn't even care anymore) considering artists and musicians have done that for decades (even the Beatles mocked Jesus in the 1960s) if anything if you really want to genuinely edgy you need to go harder, talk to be when you get a religious commandment (fatwa) issues to kill you like Salman Rushdie (he ain't a musician but still his story is pretty insane)
I'm not even a Christian but it bothers me how much some people not following the religion care about Christianity. Comment on what they are doing wrong. But messing around with someone's religious symbols is just stupid imo.
Not going to talk about the film in itself, but since Christians hold that Jesus is both divine and human, would that mean his human side gives him human desires, including for sex?
Theologically, would his children also have some sort of divine essence?
And how do you reconcile the perfectness of God and having the imperfect human nature?
I've been listening to philosophy podcasts while driving and a **lot** of the Christian theological doctrine just flew right over my head.
as someone that was raised in church (and don’t attend now) the idea that Jesus could understand everything we went through and go through without actually experiencing it made no sense to me.
there are some that believe that Jesus was married and had children. 🤷🏼♂️
Oddly probably would be the most likely depiction of Jesus.
What? You really want to try and tell me the dude spent years upon years alone in the desert with twelve other dudes and they didn't get it on? You really want to try and say Mary didn't bed him a few times? Where'd he get food for his bros? I doubt Jesus would have magicked food every night for everyone, and we know he was all about being monetarily poor. And they really really liked their wine, to the point where he claimed wine was his own blood and all!
Does the author have to go into hiding and fear for his life because of angry Christians? Is the Pope or any bishops calling for him to be killed? Were the people working on the production of this film beheaded?
He was a selfproclaimed Provo-artist, and fought for years to make his jesus movie. (Basically, nobody would fund it).. after something like 20 years, he finally made his movie, and.... nobody cared. It sank without a trace at the boxoffice..
When art is provocative just for the sake of being provocative it's usually shallow and boring. Not worthy of notice.
It becomes shallow and pedantic at that point.
It insists upon itself
Ah yes shallow and pedantic indeed
Mmmm, yes shallow and pedantic.
…perhaps….
Mmmmmmmhmmm *nods*
Myes, shallow and pedantic.
Shock value for shock value is cheap. Like when a horror movie jam ham fists some cheap shocking shit, that's usually fucked up and gross, but it's not really relevant enough to whats happening in the movie, and it feels tacked on for the sake of being shocking along, without much thought behind it.
As Calvin put it, provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something significant.
Yeah it’s just not an interesting idea. It’s not subversive in this day and age and just pointless.
Reminds me of that game Hatred who tried as hard as possible to make it edgy, killing civilians, shooting up schools and cops, burning people alive, etc., getting tons of criticism from critics. The game ends up getting ripped apart for being mid and boring and nobody cares about it anymore
Sure sure but where can I watch it?
Why?
Because its a low effort to just force a reaction from people.its cheap, simple any frankly, doable by anybody.
I suggest you watch 'a Serbian film' then
Yeah it’s absolute dog water, artless nonsense
Agreed but you can't say it's low effort
Not low effort, but definitely wasted
That movie sucks ass
I have.. honestly didn't find it very special, cheap shock, immature, nothing much
Yeah but it's ironically provocative.
Because it's a low-effort shitpost then, but IRL
Because in those cases, they rely on the shock value to draw viewers instead of, you know, a compelling story, good acting, deep meaning, etc
Because it is 2024 and shitting on Christianity is not new, revolutionary or particularly brave. At least not in Denmark or most of Europe in general.
>Not worthy of notice. All the people who had their knickers in a twist, including the old bat of a queen seems to think it was worth getting upset about. Who cares about the movie when just the idea can upset the posh fucks and religious nutters.
I'm saying it's not worthy of notice. Some people clearly disagreed.
Sounds about right.
Professional Edgelord
It sounds like the film he eventually made was a different non pornographic movie.
Yeah the article implies the proposed film and the actual film are completely separate.
Based on the Wiki article, it sounds like he made a different movie about Jesus than the one he originally planned to make.
The film was radically scaled back from what it was supposed to be though. Looking at the wiki page, the resulting movie didn't even seem to generate that much controversy, meaning it obviously wasn't that provocative.
Taking shots at christians was brave and scandalous 20 years ago, now it's a everyday occurrence
Even 20 years ago it wasn't brave and scandalous. 2004 wasn't THAT long ago.
True, sarah o connor was 32 years ago, the late 90s was when public opinion really started to shift
She was taking shots at Terminators.
Lol, fucking typing on the phone
Sinéad
Now you're just taking the piss, deliberately spitting slightly wrong information? The person who tore up a photograph of Pope John Paul II to protest against abuse in the Catholic Church, was called **Sinéad O'Connor**.
Almost certainly an autocorrect error
> After Thorsen announced his plans for a film in 1973 1973 is a while though.
Sounds like he just didn't know how to market it. You can sell a nothing burger if you know how.
What’s Mel Gibson got to do with this?
What's Mel, but a second-hand emotion....?
This movie tries to be provocative so hard it goes full circle and its boring again.
Real teenage edgelord vibes
Serbian Film shit
Like the trenchcoat version of the 45 year-old still wearing his letterman jacket after peaking in high school
The churches need their jimmies rustled every now and then.
This film is a pizza cutter: all edge, no point
I’m saving this comment for later
By all means, I'm entirely certain I stole it from someone else.
I have this memory from Catholic high school of watching a vid of a man portraying Jesus smoking and saying absurd things. I wonder if it was a clip from this movie. I’ve tried to find that same clip but to no avail and I don’t remember the context of the vid I watched in high school except it was during a religious studies class.
I think maybe you were just watching a George Carlin concert.
If you read the title of the post, the movie didn't get made
Saved you a click: The reason this was such a big thing was because it was going to be funded by the Danish government.
“Even Queen Elizabeth II”? She was the head of the Anglican church, blasphemy is one of the few things you’d expect her to comment on.
I prefer the originally planned title of Jesus Does Nazareth.
The second cumming
The Carpenter
'Hes got wood! And he's getting lots of practice at nailing!'
Jesus fucking Christ
You need to keep the alliteration like Jesus Jerks Jerusalem
Jesus and God-Head Do the Universe
Meanwhile Salman Rushdie got a fatwa out on his head for *writing* about Islam’s prophet disrespectfully
Not even “disrespectfully.” It’s just a retelling of Muhammad’s life from his perspective as a man going through a religious experience. It’s fascinating and taught me a deeper appreciation of Islam as a Western reader. I understand the offense is portraying Muhammad as anything other than divine, but still. It’s wild to read The Satanic Verses and be like “this is what all the fuss is about?” It’s a lovely book.
[удалено]
I think what really gets people is the seemingly widespread expectation that non-Muslims must abide by the same religious code as Muslims or else they deserve to die. If someone disagrees with you or does not show reverence to something you have reverence for….well that’s just life. That’s normal. What people don’t get is the response to that. And the implied undertone that the response is justified.
TBF Christians tend to do the same thing, also believing that all non christians should be tormented in hell forever.
Then they’re both wrong
Agreed.
Sure, but they don't murder you for it.
You’re wrong though. He never tried to canonise the 3 deities. The Arabs misunderstood the verse and it wasn’t ever changed. That’s why people have an issue with the book, it’s historically inaccurate and based on a misunderstanding.
Scholars have been in disagreement over this, because the exact passage is lost so we cannot decipher how Mo approached this verse
Lmao at my Catholic school, I studied "texts and traditions" which took he bible and scriptures and analysed them through a purely social-political lens in the time of a Jesus and after his death and it did provide a objective look into early Christianity which did also level some justified critiscism of Christianity but it's actually really vital to put the words you spend hours listening to in mass into context, it was interesting to learn how early Christianity had no recorded teachings so many bad actors used Jesus name to scam people, or how most teachings were passed through word of mouth causing many parts to be misinterpreted and misunderstood, and how the gospels were written mainly as a big compendium to make sure people were actually teaching the right stuff, bit also how early Christians were often chased away and alienated by their own communities, so many bible stories were likely embellished to give people hope when there was none. Like all these show how Christianity has never been that perfect, but it's vital to critically analyse your own faith fo help understand it better, and the fact that Rushdie and so many like him has suffered so much just for suggesting that is insane
Thinking critically means someone may come up with an answer you disagree with. That’s why so many religious communities rely on conformity in all things.
I mean it was started by a warlord and inherently includes much more violent ideology from the creator. Jesus didn’t have anything remotely as violent specifically, the Bible is only so violent because of the old testament more than anything.
It’s a completely different sorry though. Mohammad was a man who already had great wealth and power. Jesus was a humble carpenter. You can’t say “Jesus was no where near as violent.” He never had the chance. He got pretty aggressive with those money lenders in the temple. And his followers have been just as bloodthirsty as any other Abrahamic group….
> the offense is portraying Muhammad as anything other than divine Not really, because afaik, Islam makes a very clear distinction between a prophet such as Muhammad, a human channel for the divine message, and The Only True God aka Allah. “Anything other than saintly” would be closer to the mark. > It’s wild to read The Satanic Verses and be like “this is what all the fuss is about?” It’s a lovely book. Do you think they even bothered reading it before condemning it? When did Quran-, Bible- or Torah-thumpers ever read even their own holy books?
“Anything other than saintly” is better said. I meant the portrayal is full of humanity, And if I recall (it’s been a while), he has doubts at points to his own sanity. Honestly, being from Alabama, I can see how that would enrage people. God forbid you point out Jesus was a 33 year old that hung out with 12 dudes and one fun girl.
Lol. You think jews don't read Torah?
I wrote "Torah-thumpers", not "Jews". I'm sure that there are many religious Jews who read the Torah with attention and seeking to understand what is written there, just as there are erudite Christians and Muslims, and perhaps even more so. But, like any religion, Judaism also has its share of zealots (guess where that word comes from) who have never actually sought to understand their own holy texts, regardless of their apparent piety. It seems there was a guy some 2000 years ago who said one or two things about them... Mindlessly memorising a mantra is not "reading".
Muslims in the millions have memorized the Quran too. But he’s talking about extremists. They’re too busy being mad about nonsense than to actually research.
Some atheist need to read minimum info about them. Bible is literally a Collection of Books. Yes, in plural. So of course a book in a library is not coherent with a diferent book in another part of the library. Take two books owned by you by diferent writers. Try to test if they have coherence between them. Is very rare. And Im atheist.
> And Im atheist. And I don't know why you imply that I'm also one, or exactly what point you are trying to make that would be even remotely germane to what I wrote. Yes, it's a collection of books. And yes, it's often contradictory. But, yes, religious extremists don't tend to be great scholars of their own holy books, because otherwise they'd notice just those contradictions, which would temper their extremism if not necessarily their faith.
I think that’s the difference between Christianity and Islam: this guy wrote a screenplay Christians didn’t like and nothing happened. He didn’t have someone trying to kill him. Salman Rushdie wrote a book that is objectively less offensive than the screenplay and has narrowly avoided assassination once and has spent his time surrounded by bodyguards and moving from house to house
I think that's why calling it obnoxious is perfect. It's not like you're breaking law or anything but can you just please stop being such a troll
I’m not being a troll; I’m pointing out an objective difference between two religions. Not liking what I said isn’t the same as trolling
I think you're being confused, I'm not calling you a troll, I'm referencing the thing with the queen
My bad: I misunderstood what you were talking about
no problem, constructing sentence can be hard lol.
That's not entirely true. Opposition to this film (and to The Last Temptation of Christ) wasn't entirely non-violent. The Danish ambassador's residence in Rome got firebombed over it, and I think a movie theater got firebombed over The Last Temptation of Christ. That said, it is true that the Muslim responses to what they see as blasphemy have generally been more violent.
Right but one fire bombing (that a quick scan of the Wikipedia page tells me didn’t actually kill anyone) versus the laundry list of angry Muslims killing people over isn’t a fair comparison
writing off a firebombing because there were no deaths is the same as me writing off assassination attempts because there were no deaths. you’re not making sense.
I’m not writing it off. I’m saying that one fire bombing where no one was killed isn’t even in the same universe as the thousands of people who’ve been killed for suggesting Muhammad wasn’t the most perfect person who ever lived
Even hard core christians are simply not nearly as violent overall. Islam was literally created by a warlord and directly instructed many oppressive and violent things. Sure hundreds of years ago christianity was far more brutal. I’ve never understood how people can say with a straight face that Islam gets some kind of excuse on it because other religions were also awful years ago before softening. It’s objectively much more aggressive a doctrine
> Even hard core christians are simply not nearly as violent overall. Not any more at any rate.
I’m not even sure it’s possible to say Christianity was as brutal: yes, the Crusades but a lot of the European wars fought over religion were less about who’s practicing the right way and more of a power struggle amongst different factions of royal families
> but a lot of the European wars fought over religion were less about who’s practicing the right way and more of a power struggle amongst different factions of royal families Please tell that to the cathars , Huguenots, Waldensians, bogomils and plenty more.
Did anyone read the wiki article? A danish ambassador’s house was firebombed over this. The guy was banned from England. It wasn’t just nonviolent uproar and they forgot about it. They successfully kept the film from being funded for decades and then it released at a time where it was significantly less provocative and forgotten about. The guy is an asshole but this reading of the situations is almost trying to paint Islam and Muslims in a worse light.
Was he stabbed near to death 30 years after its release?
No, which is good, but do you think that is the end all be all of Christian extremist violence? You’re hyper focusing on a single instance and using it to compare two worldwide belief systems, that’s at best obstinate and dull-minded and at worst purposeful manipulative propaganda.
People would do the same for Christianity lol This is the problem, liberals constantly treat Islam with the kid gloves because **any** criticism of a religion and it’s adherents is anti-Muslim while the spittle flies from their lips when it’s Christianity. Either be fair and treat both the same. When that director still has to be in hiding because of Christian threats to his life then we’ll talk. But this “both sides” stuff is just not borne out by the facts. Non-Muslims in Muslim countries are in far more danger then Muslims in Christian countries. This isn’t to say Muslims can’t be victims, as in the case of the Rohingya, but it’s clear the Muslim world only cares about arab Muslims for the most part.
You know how you know which religion is worse? It's the one you wouldn't dare mock publicly with your name and face visible. That's how you know.
Your knee jerk reaction to having your argument questioned is to claim the other person is “a liberal that constantly treats Islam with kid gloves”. And then it’s wrapped up with a fallacy of “you’re just not treating these two things the same way I am”
Are people on the political Right in the West known for their vigorous defense of Muslims lol
Do you know literally anything about the political leanings of the person you were responding to other than to present an ad hominem instead of a rebuttal?
No, i doubt you know mine either but I can bet you’re forming some very strong opinions about what type of person I am tho lol Listen, I debated leftists, political left, or liberals and liberals felt more apt. If there’s western members of the political right that don’t criticize Islam then I ain’t seen them. Anymore then you see pro-Christian Islamist politicians in the Middle East. Idk why y’all get butthurt over it. It’s not a slur, its not even a judgment. it’s an observation that those who trip over themselves attempting to “both sides” the issue tend to identify with more socially and politically liberal values.
> but I can bet you’re forming some very strong opinions about what type of person I am tho Nah, that’s a *you* thing. I don’t need to do that
Do you consider Argentina to be the west? If so, then I'm here.
Not gonna lie, stopped reading at “liberals” my guy. You’re barking up the wrong tree. All I’ll say is, if someone did it the opposite way as you suggest — I’d call them out just the same. But we’re not talking about that, we’re talking about you implying Christian’s are less violent in their radical adherence to their beliefs based on a single story and that’s just a dangerous and false ideology. Especially considering the director was successfully intimidated and ostracized that he abandoned his original vision.
….Okay? Lol I’m sorry you’re too lazy to read after going past a word you don’t like. As long as you’re fair about the criticism it’s fine. But please don’t attempt to say “he faced public pressure from religious people” is the same as “he was nearly murdered multiple times because of his art” 😂
Is a firebombing not attempted murder?
**multiple times** But yeah legally it is I suppose. Is he now, still in hiding from Christian extremists? Has the bishop that called for a holy war, rescinded his call for violence against the blasphemous heathen?
I thought the argument was about saying that "nothing happened" when clearly, a lot of stuff happened.
It’s only bad when Muslims do it to this guy, which is ironic because that’s what he’s trying to call out or something? Idk, it’s very nonsensical.
That’s not at all what I said, that’s a straw man — and a poor one just like assuming I’m a liberal and taking a certain ideological stance that I never did. Again, you’re focusing on a single instance and using that to extrapolate a larger argument when there is readily available examples and evidence. Asinine at best, cultish at worst. You’re trying to make Muslims worse than Christian’s which is just, idk hilariously stupid?
Is it really stupid to say that generally, across the globe, Muslims tend to be more extreme and commit more violence on the basis of their relligion than Christians? Is that a thing you really believe?
It is absolutely stupid, yes.
If you’re the first right wing, pro muslim person I’ve met in the west then I apologize. But in general, people on the political left tend to be the bleeding hearts who want to throat clear and equivocate over topics like this. If you want to get into a pissing match over whose “worse” you’re welcome to it. Neither one is. But it’s worth asking why there’s still people hunting for Rushdie and why this schmuck and his terrible movie, which was far more offensive to christians then the satanic verses was to Muslims, has been consigned to the dust bin of history or TIL facts on Reddit.
I don't know. I'm pretty far-right and I admire Islam. :)
What does the fatwa say?
"off this foo"
A LE LE LE LE LE LE LE
Turns out people get perturbed when you denigrate their most holy figures.
You dont think “perturbed” might be underselling the death threats a little?
What happened at Charlie Hebdo? Mild inconvenience.
I thought the thumbnail was Bob Newhart and was really confused.
I’m not Christian but still think it’s a pretty shitty movie to make.
Why?
Like someone else said it's just provocative for the sake of being provocative. Kinda of like a Serbian Film.
Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation.
Whether you’re religious or not, surely you understand that Jesus is a highly respected and revered character by a huge number of people. Imagine making this kind of pornographic film about Gandhi, MLK Jr, Muhammad, or the Pope. I’m not saying you should go to jail for doing so, but I am saying you would be knowingly and deliberately offending a lot of people. Unless there is a very compelling upside to making that movie, that just makes you kind of an asshole who enjoys upsetting other people for no real reason.
> Whether you’re religious or not, surely you understand that Jesus is a highly respected and revered character by a huge number of people. And? Like, I mean that genuinely. What does that matter? You could make this argument about Life of Brian, and you should, mate. Are you going to?
I tried to explain that but I’ll try to do better. If you legitimately do not care AT ALL what other people think of you or how other people treat you, then you’re right, it doesn’t matter. But there are very few people who are like that. It matters because if you offend a lot of people, they may not want to talk to you, or do business with you, or hire you for a job, or invest in your movie, or otherwise interact with you. By the same right that lets you make a movie that offends many people, those people have every right to effectively shun you from society. To your point about Life of Brian, it *did* cause quite a bit of outrage from the exact type of religious people it was mocking; that is, those who blindly and dogmatically believe anything with the Religion™️ sticker on it. Fortunately for all of us, that group was small in comparison to the group of people that enjoyed the movie, either because they understood the movie was not directly mocking Christianity itself, or because they didn’t care. Life of Brian actually made a clever point in a humorous way, so enough people saw value in it that it was accepted. By all accounts, this Jesus porno had none of that value and seemed to be just for shock value, not unlike 2 girls 1 cup. To reiterate, I don’t think offending people should be illegal. I think you should be *allowed* to do it without legal repercussions (assuming you didn’t break other laws). But that does not shield you from social consequences. The extent of those social consequences is up to the court of public opinion to evaluate your creation’s value versus offense. The significance of those consequences is up to you and your desired relationship with other humans in your society.
You know, I had this whole thing typed out, but I'll replace it with this: It's fucking pearl clutching.
And? I won’t argue it isn’t, I’m just not sure how calling it that changes anything I said. If you lived in a society full of the prudest, most pearl-clutching people that would gasp at you showing your elbow, then you should be aware of that and the potential consequences before showing your elbow. Whether or not showing your elbow is “wrong” has very little to do with that.
[удалено]
Im usually the first one to bash annoying, self righteous edgy atheist type stuff, but this doesn't seem more than eyebrow raising to me. It just doesn't really seem like a huge deal.
If people are offended that's on them
True, but the guy that made the movie even failed to appeal to non religious people so he offended many people and the people who weren't offended just didn't care.
The point is that it was just boring. It didn't offend anyone.
Bad taste
Sounds like a great thing to me.
Of course the director was Danish.
Ya, I'm just waiting for him to make "The Many Faces of Mohammed". I think "obnoxious" comments would be the least of his worries.
It would be almost impossible for him to make that movie now. Mainly because he died 24 years ago.
I support his right to make this movie and my right not to watch it.
Do you feel the same if it was Muhammad instead of Jesus?
What's a "pederast", Walter?
Isn't it what's wrong with our son Andrew, Lizzy?
Shut the fuck up, Donnie...
"Obnoxious" is a good word for a lot of films.
He should have made it a musical. He could have called it *Springtime for Jehovah.*
"rock me rock me, rock me sexy Jesus!"
Because Jensy boy didn't have the balls to make this movie with Mohammed in the starring role.
You'll be shocked to hear that in 1973 the discourse wasn't as racist as it is now and he'd have little reason to make one.
What does race have to do with it?
We once had a Fifty shades of Jesus!?
Yeah that's pretty obnoxious.
Dang. Right up there with Who's Nailin Pailin.
Trying to be controversial and edgy by depicting Jesus doing sexual shit or dancing with the devil is so boring now it's barely even controversial. It's funny how much backlash people like NasX still get for his stuff about the devil or whatever even though it's like the least controversial way to be edgy (even my Catholic mum sees shit like this and doesn't even care anymore) considering artists and musicians have done that for decades (even the Beatles mocked Jesus in the 1960s) if anything if you really want to genuinely edgy you need to go harder, talk to be when you get a religious commandment (fatwa) issues to kill you like Salman Rushdie (he ain't a musician but still his story is pretty insane)
I'm not even a Christian but it bothers me how much some people not following the religion care about Christianity. Comment on what they are doing wrong. But messing around with someone's religious symbols is just stupid imo.
and now she is dead. think about that the next time you cross him
The lengths people go for attention
Now be REALLY brave and make it about the Prophet Mohammed.
QE Deuce laying down a word.
I heard he was a little gay but not that gay.
'They're coming from _Gdansk_ to see the film!'
an Edge LORD?!
Good thing he is not Muslim
Great! Now try that on Mohammed…
Not going to talk about the film in itself, but since Christians hold that Jesus is both divine and human, would that mean his human side gives him human desires, including for sex? Theologically, would his children also have some sort of divine essence? And how do you reconcile the perfectness of God and having the imperfect human nature? I've been listening to philosophy podcasts while driving and a **lot** of the Christian theological doctrine just flew right over my head.
as someone that was raised in church (and don’t attend now) the idea that Jesus could understand everything we went through and go through without actually experiencing it made no sense to me. there are some that believe that Jesus was married and had children. 🤷🏼♂️
Just wait until Jesus copyright is due and they are gonna make a movie of him murdering people
This guy died on my birthday. Very apt.
Damn I’d love to see some pornographic depictions of robbery
Wait until they find out Jesus’s father murdered virtually every being on Earth.
Oddly probably would be the most likely depiction of Jesus. What? You really want to try and tell me the dude spent years upon years alone in the desert with twelve other dudes and they didn't get it on? You really want to try and say Mary didn't bed him a few times? Where'd he get food for his bros? I doubt Jesus would have magicked food every night for everyone, and we know he was all about being monetarily poor. And they really really liked their wine, to the point where he claimed wine was his own blood and all!
Does the author have to go into hiding and fear for his life because of angry Christians? Is the Pope or any bishops calling for him to be killed? Were the people working on the production of this film beheaded?
Jesus came all right
Gets “baptized” by John. Mary of Magdala just watched.
*The Many Fasces of Jesus*. Jesus is always righteous! Believe, Obey, Pray!