Is this an atheist film?
-
irisheyes317 — 18 years ago(June 26, 2007 09:41 AM)
As admittedly a non-atheist, I drew parralells between the ministry of Jesus Christ vs. the Pharasees of the day. That is, one being concerned about love and valuing human life and the other about politics and power.
As for 'religion', I guess it all depends on how you define it. -
ContinentalOp — 15 years ago(February 25, 2011 02:42 AM)
''As for 'religion', I guess it all depends on how you define it.''
We are not going to start the ''Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship'' chant, are we? Christianity fits all the definitions of a religion and it does not fit all the definitions of a relationship. You do not know Jesus/YHWH personally, you have never met him. At best it is a relationship of sorts, one with the master and servant, or god and follower, which can be found in other religions too.
If you are sick of the ''I love Jesus 100% signature'', copy and paste this into your profile! -
catalina_caesar — 18 years ago(July 01, 2007 05:43 PM)
However, speaking as an atheist, this film demonstrated all the things that I find hypocritical and stupid about organised religion. I just wondered how other people saw it.
My friend, you have missed the point. It's not about hypocrisy and stupidity of organized religion. Get off the mindless mantra you have been taught.
Join the human race. The film is about the cruelty of politics, economics, and the human condition. No human endeavor is immune from choosing the lesser of two evils, and if you think otherwise, then your mother raised a fool.
It's only hubris if I fail -
catalina_caesar — 18 years ago(July 05, 2007 10:21 PM)
Well, no, that's not what I meant. I was referring to the dilemma of the Cardinal. He had to choose political expediency (preserving the existence of the Jesuit order in Europe) over the lives of his priests at the Mission and the flock they pastored.
It's only hubris if I fail -
monum — 18 years ago(July 17, 2007 04:05 PM)
What made you think that? That was not the choice the Cardinal had to make. It was the choice between a far off mission field or the church in Europe. He chose the the limb instead of the body. Nothing to do with money, but perseverence.
I agree that church has made (and still makes) mistakes as it comes to power and money. But I think Father Gabriel embodies the true message in this movie: no compromise, no violence, just love.
In my opinion the Cardinal made a bad choice. Talking about limb and body. In the bible Paul writes about the suffering of a limb which causes the whole body to suffer. No doctor, no operation but the whole body facing consequences.
Jesus talked about the good shepherd leaving his flock searching for that 1 lost sheep. I think the Cardinal should have joined with Gabriel and the rest.
by the way, I find the movie cover posted on IMDB a bit misleading. It depicts Robert the Niro with a sword. But that's not the mission. On the DVD I have it depicts the missionary falling from the waterfall tied to a cross. That is what this movie is about: sacrifice of love. Not in a violent way, but a peaceful way. -
terramax02 — 18 years ago(November 04, 2007 01:01 PM)
Monum, i didn't just mean profit as in financial. I mean, that, when push comes to shove, religion isn't about the individual, but about the masses. As you said yourself, a few hundred were killed to save a few thousands.
-
jeff-1649 — 18 years ago(January 24, 2008 09:24 PM)
I'm turning the thread slightly to examine it from a different perspective. The movie is about accepting death, choosing to die only once, and then making courageous moral choices in the "darkness" of faith vs. the expediency of compromising, then dying the 1000 deaths of a coward. By "darkness" of faith I mean that the characters make their decisions amidst doubts, with no assurance of God's rescue. They're betting everything. That's gospel. That's the choice we all face, whether you believe in God or not.
-
anticaria — 18 years ago(March 21, 2008 07:44 PM)
<<<<<
yet that's exactly what the original poster intended. the message of this film is ultimately much simpler.. for the film merely is an ode to human empathy, devotion, and sacrifice for the plight of those less fortunate and considering that this film's most 'beautiful' characters, other than the amerindian natives themselves, are catholic priests, it is ludicrous beyond belief to attempt to paint this as an indictment on the catholic church or organized religion.. for ultimately, no religion is totally perfect.. re: they all ultimetely rely on the quality of the human heart to have meaning. in other words, the fault lies with human frailty, not with the religious message.
this beautiful film inspires the soul to new heights of sensitivity, empathy, and awareness.