Just finished watching this film
It's probably the only film I've seen that portray's Christians positively, I may have seen one before, but in today's "progressive" age it's been so long I've forgot films can teach moral Christian values, in my own case I am Agnostic, I don't believe in muh Dawkins or muh 6000 year old earth, but I do believe that the values and the community that Christianity offers is important
Smashing film anyway. Your thoughts?
Other urls found in this thread:
theguardian.com
articles.chicagotribune.com
en.m.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>moving about religion causing thousands of people die needlessly
>"portray's Christians positively"
This board aint for kids
I think it shows how willing people are to die for their faith, call that needless, but it's clearly not needless for them
get off then
Except for the movie shows that the people that died didn't actually have faith, they just worshiped just in case if it ended up being true
the kirishitan's were a suicide by proxy cult who believed dying by another's hands would send them to paladisu.
I am quite sad it bombed horribly at the box office, when I went to see it there was like 4 people in the theater opening night.
Anyway best film of 2016 (second being Moonlight), so much better than Scorsese's last couple of films.
absolute garbage
the problem is those values aren't inherently christian, they were just co-opted by them.
So fuck off you faggot fence sitter
Anybody see Kundun? Going to watch it and it looks similar in some ways.
Nice opinion. My brain probably couldn't handle the intricate thought processes that went into forming this magnificent opinion.
hes not wrong though
no it doesn't, the people were worshipping incorrectly because they couldn't conceive the idea of believing in something that wasn't natural or could be seen, doesn't mean they didn't truly believe in what they perceived as God, the film doesn't make any reference to Hell or any repercussions to Apostasy, so you can assume they are following out of faith not fear, besides the punishments are too great for anyone to want to follow Christianity
doesn't refute what I said, they were just worshipping incorrectly
yeah, the film felt very real, it was a breath of fresh air, I'm tired of seeing films where the main protagonist is some invisible hero, this is more gritty
>the problem is those values aren't inherently christian
look at Christianities history, look up Nero and his treatment of Christians, it is a Christian value to value your spirit over your body
It's shit.
>doesn't refute what I said, they were just worshipping incorrectly
because the jesuits converted people before knowing enough of their language to adequately explain how to worship correctly
To non-christians, the christians in this movie come off as awful people who got what they deserved. no different than telemarketers who cry when they get cursed out for interrupting people during dinner. the samurai were the true heroes of this film
How can we know when none of you mouth-breathing mongoloids put zero effort into substantiating claims.
:^)
What does it matter if their beliefs are shit? Most people I meet have shit unfounded beliefs.
All that matters in this movie is human suffering, compassion and forgiveness.
reminder silence takes place less than a century after the spanish inquisition
yeah, still doesn't refute, it just shows some of the Jesuits weren't very good and they ended up teaching a lot of the Japanese Christianity incorrectly, but they still believed very deeply in their version of Christianity and were willing to die for it
ignored :^)
Reminder that the idea that the Inquisition immediately used torture and killed hundreds of thousands is protestant bullshit.
5000 executions in 300 years of existence is pretty damn low
if your forced to use violence because nothing you say can refute an ideology then does that really make you correct
It should probably be noted that almost every single major figure in the atheist movement is Jewish. You could make a compelling argument that atheism is specifically being pushed by Jews in today's society, and they seem to largely be targeting western Christians and only them.
For example, Sam Harris, Chapman Cohen, David Silverman, Michael Newdow, Gregory Epstein, Sherman Wine, Bill Maher, Eric Kaufmann, and of course, Richard Dawkins's mother has a Jewish surname and was stated to have lived in the only Jewish suburb of the city she grew up in. But he hasn't explicitly named her religion.
But that's only a tiny part of the list. We could discuss the Jewish atheists who aren't pushing atheism so much as atheism-enabling political views like Marxism. For example Soklonikov, Trotsky, Deutscher, Lenin, Uritsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev and Sverdlov.
And what about atheist Jewish public entertainers that constantly run down Christianity? We can go ahead and recycle Bill Maher here and also include Jon Leibowitz, Stephen Fry, Woody Allen, Rob Reiner, Daniel Radcliffe, Larry David, David Silverman, and... I'm sure I'm close to the post cap, so rather than just name the rest of Hollywood, you get the point.
PURE COINCIDENCE though.
Scorsese's best work. Pure Kino.
so in your mind there is nothing wrong with telling people if they believe the sun only rises every three days and they are killed by someone else (as suicide is a sin) they'll go to heaven.
The reality is the jesuits weren't explaining even the most basic tenants of their religion and they didn't care, because the japs were making seemingly correct pantomimes of their rituals and making them feel empowered.
Not only that, the reason there were so many kirishitans is because the first jesuits were literally trading guns to warlords in exchange for said warlords converting their subjects. With torture.
So, yes, I am refuting everything you're saying. Because your claims are coming from a near complete ignorance of the period.
>torture
>executions
...
See, I couldn't tell if it was kino, or merely a kinolacrum seeing as how it borrowed so much from Kurosawa.
...
They had a duty to spread the truth. You're forgetting the evidence and scholars that support the story of Jesus
>His birth
>His teachings
>His followers
>His baptism
>His arrest
>His death
All without a doubt happened as the Bible states.
That all means that the multiple prophecies written (according to historical scholars) centuries before Christ was born all happen to be correct on the time, place, and person.
>let me guess: lucky guesses ayyylmao
Use words retard.
Although the days of having court-appointed lawyers and access to one’s accusers were a long way off, at one time the Spanish Inquisition was widely hailed as the best run, most humane court in Europe. There are records of people committing blasphemy in secular courts so they could have their case would fall under the Inquisition’s jurisdiction. Further, the Inquisition was the first to pronounce Europe’s witch hunt a delusion and prohibited anyone from being tried or burnt for witchcraft (the number of witches killed by the inquisition was less than 100 out of over 125,000 trials).
When the Inquisition found someone guilty of heresy, most of the sentences were not unfair—many simply required the performance of some penitential good works. Heretics were unrepentant threats to the state—not confused, simple folk (in fact, the Inquisition had little impact on the vast majority of people because it simply did not exist in many rural areas). Finally, while verdicts of guilty or not-guilty fell to the inquisitors, the use of violent punishments was up to the secular authorities.
you're off on a tangent that is completely meaningless.
>I couldn't tell if it was kino
>the Spanish Inquisition was widely hailed as the best run, most humane court in Europe
Because you'd be tortured if you claimed otherwise.
I think a lot of countries regret not putting up more resistance to christian invaders.
you retard I just said that those Jesuits were bad, the main two protagonists were different though, I'm talking about what directly happened in the film, we see two Jesuits land in Japan seemingly thinking that everyone is already Christian, then give out mass and baptisms etc.
You still haven't refuted my point "shows how willing people are to die for their faith", I'm not making an argument for whether the Jesuits were correct or not in teaching wrong, I think the main 2 protagonists had good intentions and made efforts to spread the gospel correctly, and the peasants were willing to die for this faith
> what does it matter if their beliefs are shit?
That's actually the ONLY thing that matters
>be Norwegian
>live in a shithole, basicly mudhut tier
>"muh vikings"
>our only accomplishiments so far is infighting, "breddy gudd :DD" boats and shamanistic shit
>Hvitekrist (White Christ) comes and saves us
>Suddenly we have writing (inb4 muh futhark, runes are retarded), agriculture and society
>a few hundred years later we're amongst the richest countries in the world
>some faggot fedora on a Taiwanese charcoal sketching forum tells us it was bad
Why do you think heathens deserve anything other than ridicule?
Most of the torture and executions attributed to the Church during the various inquisitions didn’t occur at all, and historians now concede that Inquisition torture chambers never existed. Torture was indeed used during some Inquisition trials (hardly uncommon for the court system of the time). The Inquisition, though, had strict rules regarding its use that put it far ahead of its time.
Torture was unauthorized until 20 years after the Inquisition began. It was first authorized by Pope Innocent IV in 1252—not as a mode of punishment, but as a means of discovering truth. It was not to be used to threaten life or cause loss of limb, was to applied only if the accused was uncertain and seemed already convicted by many weighty proofs, and after all other options had been used. When it was used it was not to be used more than once, and for no more than 15 minutes. Unfortunately these rules were sometimes circumvented by creative readings of the rule book. Torture was most cruelly used under the pressure of secular authority (Frederick II, for instance, abused the Inquisition to persecute his personal enemies). So, while torture was used in some cases, the idea of continent-spanning torture and death caused by the Church is simply not the case.
There were no rapes, feet burning, creative torture chambers, iron maidens, etc., and reports show that over 99% of all Inquisition trials did not involve torture at all. Compared to secular courts that decreed the death penalty for damaging shrubs in England, or disembowelment for sheep-stealing in France, the Inquisition was actually far more conservative than the secular Europe of the day.
Do you believe in full stops you fucking pederast?
>the main two protagonists were different though
No, they weren't.
They both very quickly tired of the life in exile they had committed to and their discovery was a direct result of their unwillingness to keep sacrificing their comfort for their faith.
>history didn't happen
...
Saudi Arabia is also one of the richest countries in the world my man, and it really isn't because of their religion
> my prejudice wasnt confirmed, so it must not be true
and a hundred other things you can't say without self-incriminating
Neither is revising history.
they were different, the film shows them explaining paradise comes after death to a couple who didn't originally understand that because they were taught differently
and one of the main facts that eventually causes the main protagonist to Apostate was when he finds out that the Christians were taught incorrectly, so he was obviously teaching it correctly himself otherwise why would he be shocked by this information
he apostates because he ends up believe that Jesus wants him to to save the peasants
weeaboo neeson character spoonfeeds you the point of the movie at the end.
Genuinely interested, do you have source?
I liked Japanese actors and what they were willing to do to depict the suffering of their people in that time. Try forcing Gal Gadot to do something like that, fucking no.
And actors even had greasy hands, like they worked in the field. Even under the nails. Every scene was perfect, the contrast between the life in the village and in the city was shown very well.
>the main character was different because he did the exact same thing as another jesuit
...
yeah this.
there is no place in japan, or any other country for that matter, for an invasive middle-eastern abrahamic religion. they fucked up a lot of stuff in nordic europe too, we had a language, a history and a spiritual identity before the christians came and burned away. in fact, many of the so called "values" and virtues of christianity, islam and judaism are repeated throughout the globe - i.e they are not as unique as people think they are. every culture that ever existed has frowned upon murder for example.
>waah evidence doesn't hold my protestant propoganda of Muh Million Martyrs as fact
>waah i can find evidence to support any conclusion on the internet why aren't you taking me seriously
>muh Nordic culture
Killing from the defenseless like rioting niggers, such a honorable culture
no, he learnt Japanese and taught the Bible correctly, he apostatised because his efforts were frivolous (because the Jesuits before him taught Christianity incorrectly) and he was told by Jesus to apostate
these japanese dudes didn't seem like heathens though. the interpeter spoke better english than i do.
>I can't read the multiple articles linked that describe the new findings
Kys you ignorant fag
For people who don't understand, the movie is about people fucking up (the jesuits) and having to be literally tortured and have people tortured because of them before they'll accept any responsibility for their fuckups.
The main character's apostate conversion mirrors that of all the kirishitans. For the kirishitans were originally tortured and threatened with more torture to convert to christianity so their Daimyos could trade for guns from europe. But the kirishitans just made a show of being converted because they feared the alternative (more torture) and wanted the reward (paladisu with no mole toltule).
The main point of the movie is you can't force people to change their minds. Even if they're wrong. Even if you can provide incontrovertible evidence they're wrong.
>he was told by Jesus to apostate
so you didn't understand the movie, that's nice
>he was told by Jesus to apostate
way to miss the point
Why didn't it get any promotional push like Scorsese's other films?
because its anti-trump
im not a christian but it looked like the japs were a bunch of meanies and the christians were just trying to do their thing
What was even the point of hunting christians down? They're even more docile and cucked than buddhists, seems like a better trade-off
OP needs to watch other Scorsese films like Last Temptation and even Wolf of Wall Street. Wolf is more moral and less religious than Silence, and there's the rub:
"Religious" audiences want superficial confirmation of the letter of the Law but not the Spirit of the Law.
Scorsese is religious and not fundamentalist. Yet religious audiences don't want religious, they want fundamentalist.
OP really needs to watch True Detective also.
in his head you morons, to justify apostatising in order to save the peasants
Passion of The Christ is underrated.
dominant japanese government identified them as a subversive force, a spearhead for occupation from europe
negro that wasn't jesus
And they were right, even if the Christians had the noblest of intentions.
Every ideological skirmish is about power.
I know he pictured it as being Jesus in his head
Dutch protestants fed lies that the Portuguese and Pope would invade Japan.
They really are the spawn of Satan.
then who was it
It was Andrew Garfield's character doing the right thing. The right thing went against his unfounded beliefs, so he had to justify it in his head with the voice of an imagined Jesus.
Spoonfeeding tards is tiring.
to be fair, in the scene where the inquisitor is describing the daimyo's problem, garfield's character responds with essentially the same thing.
The catholic church, at the time, was a purely dominant and authoritative force that used large christian populations in foreign countries to exert control over those countries and the pope was essentially the king of kings.
with that logic everything was imagined
japan was a metaphor of andrew garfields sexual desires
Your logic is bulletproof I cannot argue.
My thoughts? Shit movie. Scorsese hasnt directed anything worthwhile since the Boardwalk Empire pilot. The dialogue is poorly written and feels unnatural and out of place half of the time, not to mention that once again just about everyone speaks english with monotone american english or some cringeworthy meme-accent. Acting is mostly even worse and the only 2 actors that are genuinely applying themselves are Adam Driver and Ciaran Hinds... and i am starting to feel really strong hatred towards Andrew Garfield and his smug faggot face, he is the most talentless joke of an actor currently working and couldnt act his way out of a paper bag. Why anyone actually pays him money to ruin their movies is beyond me.
Tho plot itself is typically overdramatized and retarded and only depicts 1 slice of history in very particular light. And for once i can say that a movie was boring as hell, dancing around the same metaphysical bullshit for 1,5 hours... it wouldnt be so unbearable if the movie actually dealt with anything of substance, but as it stands the spiritual side of things is nowhere to be felt or seen thanks to miserable acting and writing.
3.5/10, and 2 of that is from cinematography.
Buddhism came from India and it's fine?
>Christian values
European values*
see There was/is no supreme leader of buddhism that used/uses converted populations to undermine the power of local rulers.
Btw, it's funny people do not say that Spanish Inquisition followed several centuries of muslim occupation of Spain, slavery etc...
As much as I hate the film, the point that Jesus was his imagination was clear since every single line of voice over (he never stops talking!) is from him. It's terribly hammy and you missed the entire point.
My interpretation is more about the prevalence of symbols within an oppressed society (the wood crucifixes gave me that much) than what's being spoken here, but you're just being a retard
I think you're painting an awfully intellectual picture of the Christian at that time in history, especially a priest, if you think seeing a reflection of Jesus or hearing his voice wasn't well within the realm of imagination.
I think you either replied to the wrong post or you really don't understand what you're reading.
i still think this is stupid
You said hearing imaginary voices was hammy.
hammy
ˈhami/Submit
adjective
1.
informal
(of acting or an actor) exaggerated or over-theatrical.
And I replied it was within the realm of possibility.
:^)
Jesus wouldn't have someone apostate to save earthly lives. Souls and the afterlife has always mattered more.
Jesus is a cunt blind to human suffering then.
What a great man to put on pedestal.
I was talking about the voiceover, though. Need to improve my writing skills.
>divine being takes on the most humiliating and painful suffering
>nah that doesn't count because some nihilist fag online has no values he'd die for
Are you saying if someone puts himself voluntarily through completely needless agonizing shit, he has to authority to put everyone else through it too?
So now I'm leaning towards "don't understand what you're reading."
Save my soul, enlightened one.
1. Not needless
2. You're not forced to be faithful
3. Suffering comes from outer oppression, Jesus isn't calling for people to torture themselves
>outer oppression
Ok I can't even say anything anymore, this is too next level for me. You win.
Maybe one day I'll learn.