Referencing this almost always exposes a hack who wants to come across deep and meaningful, right?

Referencing this almost always exposes a hack who wants to come across deep and meaningful, right?

You leave terrence malick alone cunt

Depends if they manage to be subtle about it.

Most arent

Fiction that references other fiction? Yeah, it's usually pretty embarrasing.

what if something IS deep and meaningful, though? you know, like the bible actually is

>referencing the corner stone of western civilization
>bad

Greetings there my fellow woke atheist! God isn't real, amirite?

Yeah. Unless you have a thesis or some kind of deep analysis or interpretation of somethong, leave it alone. There's nothing more retarded than simply referencing something and going "hurr I make allegory I am genius"

Sometimes. It made sense to reference it in The Tree of Life, while something like Mother! is embarrassingly pretentious.

>what if something IS deep and meaningful, though? you know, like the bible actually is
I hate to sound edgy, but aura of divine around it is pretty arbitrary. It's just tales about jews doing shit yet somehow shitty writers think it's smart to touch on it every now and then.

Why is it so common?

Yes. There are far more interesting religions in the world to use as metaphors, particularly the ones which were plagiarized by this book.

>It's just tales about jews doing shit yet somehow shitty writers think it's smart to touch on it every now and then.
it's the most culturally influential and relevant book in the history of the world
might wanna check out the fact checking on zeitgeist, champ

Nearly every movie made in the west comes from a christian perspective.

>tfw Orthodox and Catholic dogma and philosophers are actually more interesting than the source material

>ITT products of christian education try to defend their shitty book
Embarrassing.

what religions aren't just jew garbage

>When we hear the ancient bells growling on a Sunday morning we ask ourselves: Is it really possible! This, for a jew, crucified two thousand years ago, who said he was God's son? The proof of such a claim is lacking. Certainly the Christian religion is an antiquity projected into our times from remote prehistory; and the fact that the claim is believed - whereas one is otherwise so strict in examining pretensions - is perhaps the most ancient piece of this heritage. A god who begets children with a mortal woman; a sage who bids men work no more, have no more courts, but look for the signs of the impending end of the world; a justice that accepts the innocent as a vicarious sacrifice; someone who orders his disciples to drink his blood; prayers for miraculous interventions; sins perpetrated against a god, atoned for by a god; fear of a beyond to which death is the portal; the form of the cross as a symbol in a time that no longer knows the function and ignominy of the cross -- how ghoulishly all this touches us, as if from the tomb of a primeval past! Can one believe that such things are still believed?
CHRISTKEKS BTFO

>Referencing this almost always exposes a hack who wants to come across deep and meaningful, right?
Yes. Hack directors that try to reference the Bible to seem deep are exposed for how shitty they are. On the other hand, a skillful director that includes references to the Bible in his movie almost always elevates it to Qinoa status

Bible references are almost as lazy as pop culture references

>it's the most culturally influential and relevant book in the history of the world
I wonder why it's relevant. It's almost as if because it get's referenced a lot which is the problem at hand.

Because of how much it's influenced the development of Western civilization, ding dong.

idk man, the book of revelation is a pretty sick read

This is literally the "Seinfeld isn't funny" of theological arguments