Respectfully, your criticism that the screenwriter, "used God's name to promote his own political views" is a bit naive. That's exactly what any human preacher does. Any Priest, Pope, Imam, Dalai Lama, or Rabbi. "I interpret God's words this way, so I am telling you how to behave." Why should an author or screenwriter be any different? "I think the truth is this, so I'm going to tell you a story that illustrates that idea." You can disagree with the conclusion but not the storyteller's right to express those ideas. There are 45,000 different sects of Christianity alone, let along all the other world faiths. Are 44,999 wrong and only the one you adhere to 'right?' The leaders of all 45k denominations of Christianity, let alone the other thousands of non-Christian religions, are all using God's name to promote their own political views. The Catholic Church, the subject of the nolvel and the film is probably the most political denomination in human history. The church has started wars and crusades, supported dictators (including Hitler) spent billions in political donations and manipulations, been kingmaker and king-breaker for two thousand years. To suggest its not political is absurd. No offense, but if we REALLY lived the way Christ asked of us there would be no Pope in his gold-plated palace in Rome. No Sistine Chapel or Handel's Messiah either, so I'm not saying it shouldn't exist but lets be honest. The Church feeds the poor and helps the helpless but it also covers up thousands of child sex offenders to protect its reputation too. It, along with all religions, live in a 5000 year old symbiotic relationship with the State and secular power. The Archbishop crowns the king and the king make's sure the Archbishop lives in the 2nd best palace in the land. Religion, but it very nature, uses "gods name to promote" political views.
I appreciate the feedback and viewpoints you provided. However, I wasn’t trying to that the author and screenwriter had no right to use God as a political tool for expression. In fact, most of the things that were presented in this movie are things that I also agree with. You are correct in the fact that Christians have used God’s name for political gain over the years and I’m not saying that’s right either. Rather, I was trying to express that I appreciated their stance on God in this film, but felt that the ending was a little too forced. The entire film made it seem as though the author understood where God would have His viewpoint on the situation. However, the ending for it just didn’t connect very well to the characteristics of the author and screenwriter gave God in this film. I’m sorry if I didn’t clarify my full thoughts on the situation, and it may be naïve, but my choice still stands. While again, you are correct that we have used God for political gang that does not mean we should.
I’m a big fan of you been following your journey since the beginning!!
Thank you! I appreciate your support 🥺
Hahaha so the movie worked to piss you off! Amen!
Respectfully, your criticism that the screenwriter, "used God's name to promote his own political views" is a bit naive. That's exactly what any human preacher does. Any Priest, Pope, Imam, Dalai Lama, or Rabbi. "I interpret God's words this way, so I am telling you how to behave." Why should an author or screenwriter be any different? "I think the truth is this, so I'm going to tell you a story that illustrates that idea." You can disagree with the conclusion but not the storyteller's right to express those ideas. There are 45,000 different sects of Christianity alone, let along all the other world faiths. Are 44,999 wrong and only the one you adhere to 'right?' The leaders of all 45k denominations of Christianity, let alone the other thousands of non-Christian religions, are all using God's name to promote their own political views. The Catholic Church, the subject of the nolvel and the film is probably the most political denomination in human history. The church has started wars and crusades, supported dictators (including Hitler) spent billions in political donations and manipulations, been kingmaker and king-breaker for two thousand years. To suggest its not political is absurd. No offense, but if we REALLY lived the way Christ asked of us there would be no Pope in his gold-plated palace in Rome. No Sistine Chapel or Handel's Messiah either, so I'm not saying it shouldn't exist but lets be honest. The Church feeds the poor and helps the helpless but it also covers up thousands of child sex offenders to protect its reputation too. It, along with all religions, live in a 5000 year old symbiotic relationship with the State and secular power. The Archbishop crowns the king and the king make's sure the Archbishop lives in the 2nd best palace in the land. Religion, but it very nature, uses "gods name to promote" political views.
I appreciate the feedback and viewpoints you provided. However, I wasn’t trying to that the author and screenwriter had no right to use God as a political tool for expression. In fact, most of the things that were presented in this movie are things that I also agree with. You are correct in the fact that Christians have used God’s name for political gain over the years and I’m not saying that’s right either. Rather, I was trying to express that I appreciated their stance on God in this film, but felt that the ending was a little too forced. The entire film made it seem as though the author understood where God would have His viewpoint on the situation. However, the ending for it just didn’t connect very well to the characteristics of the author and screenwriter gave God in this film. I’m sorry if I didn’t clarify my full thoughts on the situation, and it may be naïve, but my choice still stands. While again, you are correct that we have used God for political gang that does not mean we should.