So environmentalists will use this movie's release as an opportunity to bring about awareness for their cause. What's the big deal? Something tells me you're weren't making fun of Christians who were speaking out about their beliefs when "The Passion of the Christ" came out in theaters.
"THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW presents us with a great opportunity to talk about the scientific realities of climate change." Pardon my language, but this is pure horse****! This is a MOVIE, folks. A fantasy movie at that. Radical climate change like that is almost impossible (I won't say 100% impossible. After all, ANYTHING is possible. But it defies logic, to say the least). All climate change on this planet has been the result of gradual processes (changes in Earth's orbit, sun-spot intensity, heavy volcanic activity and geological/tectonic processes, etc., etc.) that take AT LEAST a few hundred years (and in some cases, thousands of years) to build up and then regress. An ice age does not just set in "the day after tomorrow;" it takes awhile. The radical green nuts who intend to try to use this film's promotion and release as a bully pulpit to tell us all that this is what will happen if we keep driving SUVs and drinking out of styrofoam cups are just that, nuts. I plan to see this film; it looks quite entertaining. But don't think for a minute that any real scientific research went into this thing. I can assure you, none did. And Al Gore is still an idiot. Thank God he is not President!
Fiction vs Factual Has never happened (and will not) vs did happen(and still does) prediction vs historical truth Politics vs faith Blame vs sacrifice I could go on. It is not even close to same thing. The fact that you would even remotely imply that it is just makes me laugh. I honestly hope you are joking.
i dont want to start alot of trouble, but calling the passion movie fact is nuts. i dont think historians agree that jesus magically healed a man's ear by waving at him, or that a bird came and pecked a guy's eye out on the cross immediately after not pledging allegiance to jesus. or that jesus rose from the dead with his hair all nice and face looking great after getting totally destroyed 3 days earlier. dont call it facts. it is your faith, i understand that, but it isnt "historical truth", not at all. to lie and say that the passion is a historically factual movie is cheap and wrong. it is a depiction of mel gibson's faith, and apparently yours. there is nothing factual about satan walking the streets in androgenous form and making scary faces.
Not true, The devil came to my door last Halloween and made a scary face. He wanted my soul but he seemed satisfied when I gave him a Snickers instead.
Historians can prove that people at the time wrote or talked about these actions. Archeology can prove that many events listed in the bible did take place. Maybe I do not understand history, but is that not how most of history's facts are decided from that time. The bible has been proven accurate many times by people trying to disprove it. Archeologists dig up sites to disprove something but end up proving that the action listed in the bible could have taken place. They may still try to say that it was nature and not God for example with earthquakes, but again the events were found to have taken place. The movie is about Jesus dying for our sins. More specifically it is about his last days on earth. Is it not a fact that there was a Jew named Jesus born 2004 years ago who had a growing group of followers and who angered a lot of the Jewish leadership of his day. These Jews along with the local Roman leadership got together and ended up having him tortured and killed on a cross. That our calendar years are based on his birth. That many manuscripts from that time do write about these events. Even people who mistakenly do not believe that Jesus is the son of God or who do not even believe in God know that these events took place. There are parts in the movie and within christian beliefs that do take faith, but even though I believe they are facts I can see why those without this faith would choose to ignore these parts as truth. But none of this changes the historical facts that no one can dispute.
I think what he means Martin, is that to compare these two movies and the rhetoric of their supporters is foolish because they aren't the same thing. Mel Gibson's interpretations notwithstanding, his movie is based on something that really did happen; a man named Jesus lived in the Holy Land around the start of the millenium, preached that we should love one another and that he was the Son of God, was executed by the Romans, and gave rise to a religion based on his teachings and resurrection after his body mysteriously disappeared from his tomb. Now, whatever religious inferences you or I make out of those historical facts are our own business. But that's what happened. Contrast it to this movie, where nothing like what is depicted has happened or probably will ever happen, and the radical Greens have VERY LITTLE scientific or historical evidence that favors their fervant belief that A) the planet is doomed, and B) it's our (humans) fault. This movie is pure science fiction. Nothing more. If radical environmentalism is a religion, then this movie is not their "Passion." It's their on-screen version of "Left Behind" or Armageddon.
To Martin: You do not have to belittle the beliefs of others by referring to them as acts of magic or wizardry. You are entitled to your beliefs and I mostly appreciate your expressions of your beliefs, but many are very serious about their faith and don't appreciate the mockery. To Purple Jungle: It is the height of arrogance for any human being to believe that we can destroy the earth during the relative speck of time that we are here. The earth was here for billions (or more) of years before humans and it will be here for gazillions of years after we are gone.
