I just downloaded the movie Dogma last night and watched it, to find it surprisingly fun and interesting. I am not a big Kevin Smith fan, I have only seen two of his others (Mallrats I liked, Chasing Amy I hated).
However Silent Bob (AKA Kevin Smith) seems to have a way with getting non talents to act, Ben Affleck, Matt (im a piece of cardboard) Damon, Salma Hayek all turn in very good jobs. Even Chris Rock, who is funny himself, but consistently makes awful movies turns in a low key performance, without too much race b***hing.
Anyways, I was wondering what other movies are out there that really gets you to really think about the alleged heaven/hell power struggle.
The Omen and the Exorcist both fall short of interesting philosophical ideas, saying merely that evil just "is"
Although I am Jewish, church bashing movies such as Stigmata merely annoy me with all of its anti church prattle and paranoia.
Personally I feel that Satan doesnt really exist. Think about it, that would lessen God. God is all powerful and all knowing, so why would God even engage in petty warfare?? Plus both sides of every war commit total acts of evil and death, something God is incapable of. Also, if evil were to strive against God, he would lose, because God doesn't engage in petty battles, nor would he be able to lessen God's greatness, for God is omni benevelant.
Anyways, these are just my philosophical ramblings, feel free to talk about Dogma and how good of a movie it is.
It wasn't a bad movie, I just think Smith isn't a mature enough filmmaker to handle weighty issues. Still, it's probably his best film, except maybe for CLERKS, which was good and since it was his first film didn't rely on so much inside humor.
I think it would have been better had he gotten rid of some of the more juvenile stuff, like the doody demon.
On a theological level, I feel that God and Lucifer (God's highest-ranking Seraphim) had a falling-out due to the creation of man. Once God found out Lu was the snake at the Tree Of Knowledge, God made sure Lu would have only power in a certain way. Basically, Lucifer and God are on good terms, have coffee now and then, share stories, and Lucifer does God's dirty work for him (the work that God wants no blame for). But, hey...that's just me.
The movie is excellent. What's with the Matt Damon bashing? He's not too bad an actor at all. He's just never really given a role where he can excel quite like he was given with Dogma.
Satan plays a prominent role in the Bible, a work which is supposed to be the word of God. If Satan doesn't exist, then God is a liar, therefore fallible, therefore Christianity has been following a celestial telemarketer all these years.
Brother R
But Anti-Christ does exist, and his name is Sam Neil...
I thought the Anti-Christ's name was Pauly Shore.
The idea that an all-powerful god could have an adversary or that an angel could rebel against or do anything on the sly against an all-knowing, all-powerful, omni-present god is too stupid to be comprehensible! All-powerful is a pretty decisive descriptor. Resistance against something in possession of all power in existence is inherently impossible. If Lucifer exists then it only exists in cooperation with god as there is not other conceivable possibility.
Funk E. You make some very good points, however, Satan is not in the Jewish bible, nor in Buddhist religion. The snake as satan is open to much dispute, I think that the snake is just that, a snake.
I do believe that demons exist, but only becaused they were refused from Heaven, however, I think if a rebellious angel, as Funk E said, tried to pool the wool over an ALL POWERFUL/KNOWLEDGEABLE being would be folly. If anything, the angel would be turned human, losing its god-like purity. Why would God allow an evil being to retain power? SO, if Satan did exist he would be mortal.
Matt Damon Can NOT act more than maybe a rabid goat. He has had two good roles (Dogma and School Ties) but in everything else he is a superflous stupid character, a bad actor or computer generated (I think that sums up his roles in Ocean's 11, Talented Mr. Ripley, and That martial arts movie he did)
Also, the anti Christ is surely Carrot Top, at least Pauly Shore doesnt make money anymore
The idea that an all-powerful god could have an adversary or that an angel could rebel against or do anything on the sly against an all-knowing, all-powerful, omni-present god is too stupid to be comprehensible!
When you have children it makes more sense. From a small child's point of view, a parent is indeed all powerful and all knowing. And yet children have there own will, and as parent, you want them to have that will. It helps them to be unique and special. You want them to love you, and part of that love is based on sheer dependence, and part of the love is an act of will on their part to love you. If they had no will of their own to disobey, then they would have no will of their own to love honestly.
Resistance against something in possession of all power in existence is inherently impossible
I could completely and utterly enforce my will upon my children such that any disobedience against me was totally unthinkable, but at the risk of destroying what I hope to nourish.
Satan's, and our, relationship to God is just the concepts magnified. As a parent, I can imperfectly understand those concepts much more clearly now then I id before.
BTW, the biblical teaching that I was raised with was basically that the game was over, and Satan was just trying to take as many people down with him as possible, not that God and Satan were equal forces fighting each other.
To Evans 3:
True, Satan in fact has very little basis in the bible in general, however there is a theoretical advisory who inflicts great suffering on Job.
To Fearless:
As a parent you are not in fact all powerful. Not even relative to an infant. I don't think the scope of the concept of all-powerful has really been comprehended in principle. There is absolutely no single kinetic act that is not by definition a part of god. and unlike we humans who have parts that we have no real knowledge of (do you know how many skin cells you have right now?) god is also qualified as all knowing which means no kinetic act goes unnoticed. Right down to the electron probability fields in every atom is the power of and part of god. That makes any adversarial relationship to god ultimately vacuous. Your children can defy you only because you do not control every calorie that powers the muscles they use to defy you. You do not know every thought in their head. If you did your relationship to your children would be quite different.
I've always wondered about if beliefs affect strength. Example: let's say that during the Viking times, the Viking gods were powerful because the Vikings believed in them. Then, over time, the Christian god is introduced and then more people start believing in the Christian god over the Viking gods, therefore, the Viking gods power start to wane and eventually diminish. Now, enter the Devil. Maybe his power is based on how many believe in him. So if less people believe in him, and more in the Christian god, then God has more power.
N.B. Not that I am saying that this fact, but just another way of thinking about it.
However Steve, the Norse gods are just mythology, while God has yet to be proved or disproved. I dont think it is the belief that makes the God, for than God would would be a slave to his people, which is impossible.
But remember, given that we think of the Norse gods as mythology, but in their day, the gods were just as real to them as God is to Christians (or Jewish or followers of Islam). That's what I'm trying to say, that when people stop believing, they become mythology. In Genesis, God created man to tend the earth and to worship him. So in a way, yes, God is dependent on us because if we did not believe in him, then he would go the way of mythology. Now someone could argue that all the mythology gods are just different aspects of the one god. But still, to the Vikings (in keeping with my example) their gods were as real as rain.
I agree with Steve here. There has been no more or less proof for the existence of the Viking gods than there has for the Christian God. And no, the Bible doesn't count because unless you know the guys who were following God around with a dictaphone, "Because it says so" isn't good enough. When everyone was praying to Thor and Odin, and some guy came along talking about this really cool new religion called Christianity, I'm sure all the Vikings just looked at him and said, "Oh, shut up. That's just some stupid Arab mythology."
On a slightly different note, there's a great book by Neil Gaiman called American Gods about exactly this, what happens to gods when no one remembers or cares about them anymore? Check it out, it's an amazing read as is everything else Gaiman has done.
Brother R
As a parent you are not in fact all powerful. Not even relative to an infant. I don't think the scope of the concept of all-powerful has really been comprehended in principle
From the point of view of the child to the parent, the analogy is sufficient in that the potential for power does not necesitate the exercies of that power.
But, on a more fundamental nature, your definition of God is closer to a more Eastern-style montheism or similar, then a Judeo-Christian and even Muslim monotheism. Naturally, if we are talking about Satan and his rebellion against God, then we are very much talking within the context of those traditions (because it is from those traditions, that we draw our image of Satan) and, as such, the nature of God must be consistant with those theologies.
In monotheistic theology, God is seperate from creation. Creation is not a part of God. God is in all but is not all in a sense like a chair is completely consumed by the time it exists in but time is not a chair. Creation has limited autonomy from God's controlling hand, in the sense that God can control, but chooses not to for the most part, and lets things run the course with limited intervention (how limited is a matter of disagreement). Within this framework, the possibiliy of autonomy being exercised in free-will resulting in rebelling is certainly possible and usually seen as inevitable if nor required. Certainly most religions that hold such a view of God also hold such a view of of the result in our limited available sample size.
However, that's not the God you are describing with terminology as "every atom is the power of and part of god." and "control every calorie that powers the muscles they use to defy you". In such a context, not only is Satanic rebellion impossible, but so is simple free will. Granted, Satan is impossibe within a metaphysics that defines God as such, but religions that contain Satan don't define God as such so it'a non-sequitar. Might as well advance that the very idea of Zeus is impossible within Incan religion. That's pretty much true be definition, but not worth much discussion.
Within the context of religions that have advanced the concept of Satan, Satan is very possible within how those religions also define God. But to discuss Satan has to be done within the larger theology of that belief system. Because it's just as easy to propose a viewpoint of Satan within terms of chaos and rebellion that would also make God impossible be definition. That's not much use because you've just defined your terms in ways to exclude certain possibilities.
Or, in other words, you've changed the definitions in way that cancels some terms by fiat, but not shown that the concepts of Satan is actually illogical or impossible withing the belief systems in which he is said to exist
I've always thought it would be cool to have a TV show/movie where all the Gods of various mythologies were real and fought each other with their superpowers. Think of all the great match-ups you could have, with Thor and Baron Samedi going toe to toe, or Buddha using Dragonball Z type powers to fight Jesus.
There was a South Park where Jesus and Santa Claus got into a battle royale.
Very well put, Fearless. Those are some of the classic arguments regarding freewill and the nature of a creator god. I particularly like the analogy of the chair in time. That was a nice one.
There is an implication within Christian theology and somewhat less directly in Judaic theology that the creator god is separate, yet eminent with regards to it's creation. There is also the implication that from the Judaic view that their god is the most powerful which was extended by Christianity that god is so powerful that there are no others. If dealing with scripture exclusively I do not believe omnipotence is ever expressly mentioned as a trait of god (if there is, please, let me know). Christianity and Judaism may play around with the idea of free will and an active force of evil, but if you press them to concede that their god is somehow limited by not being in complete control of the creation or that there could be an adversary with it’s own power. They will flatly deny such a claim. Which leads us to the all-powerful/knowing/present model of the Judo-Christian god. Their theology is trying to have it’s cake and eat it too. They want a god that none can challenge, but they want it to some how be willingly ineffectual in the affairs of man. That’s a basic contradiction.
Eminence within the creation alone is enough to make free will something of a confidence game. The idea that a god is allowing you to do what ever you want with it's power is kind of an empty form of free will. If god is separate from creation it’s something analogous to a thought/mind example. My mind is greater than my individual thoughts, but my individual thoughts are part of my mind. All it really establishes is that god is inclusive of and yet greater still than creation. Yet god’s is eminent in (read part of) the creation. Free will is still god’s will. Will power is god’s power. If you do something, god wills it. Got does not “let†you do your own thing as god must exert the power you need to do it. God knows what you are going to do and in so permitting it is an active participant. Even the thought itself is god’s will (power).
You are wrong with free will in my opinion Funk E. consider this....
Think of it this way, when Adam and Eve were first created they were mindless supplicants to the will of God. They walked around naked, because they had no knowledge that it was embarassing, they had no knowledge of farming and had to live in perfection in order to survive. They also had no ability to make a decision of their own, they had to obey God, much as they had to obey the snake, for not knowing any better. So, from this, we find that God is the only being who has the power of knowledge, which makes knowledge a God like ability.
However, by stealing and eating the apple, the humans effectively stole a God like power from God. This was the true mix of God and man together. After the apple, Adam and Eve were both capable of lying, thinking and problem solving. Their sons, Cain and Able both had a choice of what to do (God favored shepards, so it stands to reason if humans didnt have free will, they would all become shepards).
So, God, knows all of the infinite possibilties, but can not know which path you as a human choose. It is similar to releasing a feather in the air. Without testing the air, you can know it will go in one of the four directions and what the outcomes are, but it is beyond your control to decide in which direction the feather would float. God knows all of the possible directions a person can take, but only you can choose.
>I've always thought it would be cool to have a TV show/movie where all the >Gods of various mythologies were real and fought each other with their >superpowers.
Check out the book AMERICAN GODS by Neil Gaiman--very similar concept, with the idea of gods having strength according to the number of people who believe in them. The older gods struggle with the newer gods that have been created in the age of technology.
>Anyways, I was wondering what other movies are out there that really gets you to
>really think about the alleged heaven/hell power struggle.
Try the Prophecy trilogy.
For a very adult film attempt see "Vulgar" it's very dark and disturbing but I like it.