The madmen did it. What's next on the remake/reboot list?

WE

WUZ

...

fucking bluepilled normies

even if it was propaganda I doubt it will be very pro-Christian in its message. I guarantee you someone in the movie will supersede Christ's role as a savior and every miracle will be done in the context of Jesus taking credit for something he didn't do, much like how the white man didn't actually build any civilizations.

BLACKED

...

To be fair, it's not a remake. It's an adaptation of a public domain novel. Anyone can make a Ben-Hur movie like anyone can make a Dracula movie or a Sherlock Holmes movie. Not only that, but Ben-Hur had already been made twice in 1907 and in 1925 before the most famous Charlton Heston one in 1959.

I fully expect this one to be shit though as the Heston one is too classic and modernist Jews ruin everything. I just found out they got Xerxes from 300 to play Jesus. WTF.

Hollywood can't die soon enough.

What could possibly be more red-pilled than praying to a dead kike on a stick?

...

This is so historically inexact, black people at the time (nubians, the only ones we got written records of) would shave all their bodyhair and wear ornamental wigs, they got that from the egyptians

Afaik the only ones wearing dreadlocks at the time were the spartans, because for them it was the sign of a free man since only slaves had their hair cut short

...

This looks pretty good, minus Samel L Freeman diversifying Rome.

what's Holla Forums pissed about?

Sparta would have been dead for a couple hundred years at the time of jeebus. roman empire conquered achean conf like 200 bc or something

besides dreads is a natural state of hair if you dont comb it, the fictional character of the sheik that morgan freeman is playing could easily have had nappy head

there's nothing wrong with blacks in a movie about rome at the time of christ, they were literally slaves all over the empire

ya of course, but giving one a prominent role in a movie set in ancient Greece is uncalled for, it's just pandering to the diversity God at this point.

Unless the role is humiliating and just shows him in slavery, that would be okay, or if he was a villain.

...

it really doesnt matter at all. my opinion. the book its based on is fiction from 1880, treats the word "Arab" as if it existed in the year 1, and is generally not historically accurate considering it's a story about jesus

**As Ben-Hur descended the steps of the stand, an Arab arose upon the last one at the foot, and cried out,

"Men of the East and West–hearken! The good Sheik Ilderim giveth greeting. With four horses, sons of the favorites of Solomon the Wise, he hath come up against the best. Needs he most a mighty man to drive them. Whoso will take them to his satisfaction, to him he promiseth enrichment forever. Here–there–in the city and in the Circuses, and wherever the strong most do congregate, tell ye this his offer. So saith my master, Sheik Ilderim the Generous."

The proclamation awakened a great buzz among the people under the awning. By night it would be repeated and discussed in all the sporting circles of Antioch. Ben-Hur, hearing it, stopped and looked hesitatingly from the herald to the sheik. Malluch thought he was about to accept the offer, but was relieved when he presently turned to him, and asked, "Good Malluch, where to now?"**

also the book is public domain if anyone is interested:

gutenberg.org/ebooks/2145

the Son and the Father are not the same "person" or "hypostatis"; but they are the same divine essence and thus God.

the Son is uncreated and has always existed, but he chose to enter into temporal history when he incarnated as Jesus of Nazareth.

t. not a christian, but the concept isn't as weird as fedoras imagine

Arabs aren't African though, they are semites.
and sheik is typically a term for arabs or muslims. Muslims didn't exist back then, and the idea of an african being an Arab sheik is pretty crazy, they would most likely have been slaves if anything.

but who created the divine essence XD?

then why can't the universe have always existed :3?

I thought he was God?

i think you're nit picking, morgan freeman is convincing enough to american audiences as an arab

WE

nice try, guy

...

empirically: big bang implies a beginning.
logically: you can't traverse an infinite length. the length of time from an "infinite past" to the "present" would be impossible to make…Essentially there would never be enough time for us to get to the present from an eternal past. But we are in the present, so the past can't be infinite.

Also change implies destruction, a phenomena that changes can't be eternal. The universe obviously undergoes change, planets are born, suns explode, galaxies crash, etc…

God doesn't solve the problem of infinite recursion you fucking sophist.

sure it can. if time itself is a physical property, with a density, then an infinitely dense beginning such as the big bang could house an infinitely large past, even though it has a beginning

God transcends time and space and so solves the problem very easily.

no such thing as a "beginning" to an "infinite past" by definition. It's a contradiction of terms, like saying an eternal future has an ending point.

An infinite past would never have enough time to approach any moment, let alone the present. It would be asymptotic towards every "point" of time, basically it would never begin at all, it would never actualize a present.

No, it doesn't solve the logical problem of something needing to be created, or needing a cause
That's just special pleading.

Thankfully The Robe's not considered good/popular enough for butchering.

smh tbh

Romans banned assault swords, that's why no gay bath houses were cut up

What the fuck are you talking about, those right wing nut jobs didn't ban high-capacity throwing-knife rigs until 37 B.C.

it would only be special pleading if I said God is material, and finite, like a tree or a sun, and then made a special exception for him. But I didn't.
God by definition is nothing like the material world, so it isn't special pleading at all, it's a totally different category.

And I never said "all causes need a cause" as a general rule.

Why would being a sp00py magical being exempt you from causality

God is the source of what you call causality.

He's exempt from having a cause by his very nature, which has no beginning or end, no parts, doesn't change, immaterial, atemporal, etc.

why can't the universe be exempt from having a cause by its nature?
Do you have any evidence that something besides the material world exists :^)?
Into the trash it goes.

Because it has a cause.

Well, know, you're saying things can exist without a cause, so why not the universe and instead only magical skywizards get to exist without causes?

well, no*

Because it has contingent parts, it has a beginning, it changes, it's material and bound within the space-time dimension…because logic implies such a thing has a cause? because our best empirical science confirms this?

If you want to imagine the universe is eternal and causeless, that's fine, but it would be a matter of faith.

I never quoted the bible or appealed to my experiences.

I'm not the user you were conversing with, but I do agree with him.

If everything in material existence has to have a cause, then there cannot be an uncaused cause. We know our universe has a cause, therefore by definition we cannot say it's eternal and uncaused.

God by definition is outside of material, and the laws and logic that regulates it cannot be applied to God, for that reason.

Logic does not imply that consciousness can exist without matter or that there could be infinite energy out of nowhere e.g. omnipotence but that hasn't stopped you believing in God

I'm not claiming it was causeless, I don't know, I'm saying that your answer, "my special deity gets to not have a cause because I want to solve the problem of infinite recursion" isn't a valid answer.

If he's outside of material, he doesn't exist in the material world, so he doesn't exist. You're an atheist now, congratulations.

lmao

DUDE MYSTICISM LMAO

go fuck yourself tbh fam

It is a valid answer. You might not like it, or agree with it, but that doesn't stop it from being a valid answer.

Only the first part of your sentence is correct.
He's outside of material.
Does the programmer of a program need to be physically in the program to be able to write it or influence it?

I already know this conversation is going nowhere. Belief in God is an axiom central to someone's worldview, if another person does not share that axiom, it's literally futile to attempt to argue in favour of it. The axiom being that there is more than material existence.

not an argument xd

No, but he interacts with the program through material processes.

i find its important to challenge your own beliefs with an argument now and again, plues you forget that you have an audience.

...

God is the condition for the possibility of causality. He's exempt from having a cause by definition, he has no need of it, he is what structured causality in the first place.

For example, sub-atomic particles cause colors but they don't have a color themselves. They are the condition for the possibility of colors.
You're making a category error when you ask what caused God, because you don't understand the language your using.

God is the condition for the possibility of matter.

And matter is barely real. Matter depends on a frame of reference to be tangible and then only for a moment, because it changes.
The only real existent is God, everything else is basically already dead and illusory.

How does he do that? He programs himself into the program and then writes the program from inside of it? No, the programmer is outside of the program, incomprehensible to the subjects, laws and logic inside of it until the programmer reveals himself to it.

Whose definition D:?

Or that might just be the universe.

Yeah, but he still has a direct material connection via electrons, code, etc.

In this case, the program would be the material world, whereas the world of the programmer (God) is the immaterial.

It's not a perfect analogy, but it's close.

Oh btw I'm a right-wing atheist so if being a mystic is preventing you guys from becoming communist faggots that's fine with me, but I still decided to tip my fedora anyways.

It's a shit analogy. Trans-dimensional interaction would be nothing like interacting with a box, in the same universe you are in, from outside and pressing some buttons that change some arrangements of electrons.

so you admit you havent read plato? youre really missing out.

No, I haven't read him, but I know about his plans for having philosopher kings run society, to destroy/regulate the shit out of a bunch of stuff like art, I mean it's basically 1984 with togas and pederasty.

contradiction of terms.
the universe began to exist (according to science and logic)
the universe has contingent parts and undergoes change (simple observation).

It can't be the source of causality since it is subject to it.
The source of causality must transcend it.

if you had read the book you would know that he only called for all this draconian autisim if you want to have your cake and eat it too.also this is a textbook case of tu quoque, as one of his political theories does not invalidate his epistemological theories, which are what are relevant here.

If you can get around the problem of infinite recursion of causes by saying "god transcends causality" why can't I just say the conditions necessary for the big bang transcend causality :^)?

I didn't say it did, but that realm of higher forms stuff is a load of bullshit D:

proofs?

the big bang is still part of the material universe…it can't transcend causality anymore than a sun or tree can.

So there's a higher form of dog shit?

Also, you can dispel this via a simple experiment. Expose children to only 3 legged chairs and despite being exposed to a "higher form of chairs" with 4 legs, they'll think the essence of "chairness" is 3 legs, not 4.

Or maybe it was empty of matter/energy and there was only the transcendent natural laws, which was an unstable state that resulted in the big bang :^)?

glad to see youve read that diogenes quote at least.

ill answer that by asking you this; is there any condition under which A^2 + B^2 =/=C^2?

keep thinking kid, you're getting on the right track now. Maybe one day you'll replace that fedora with a real brain

no

your stupid smugfu doesn't even know how to wink while keeping one eye open

so A^2 + B^2 will equal C^2 before the creation of the earth and after the heat death of the sun?

*heat death of the universe?

After the heat death? Assuming natural laws stay the same, yeah, before the Earth was captured by the sun's orbit billions of years ago? Yeah. At the beginning of the Big Bang? I don't know, some people think the natural laws might have been different.

captured by the sun's gravitational pull and locked into orbit*

alright, kinda did this ass backwards, but whatever. now, would you agree that no man has ever made an actual right triangle? by that i mean a right triangle plus or minus zero degrees to the nth degree after the decimal point?

*nth place after the decimal point

You mean made a physical representation of a triangle that was literally perfect down to the last electron/neutron/proton? No, that's not practically possible.

and yet, we know that A^2 + B^2 = C^2 without ever having seen one. meaning that the concept exists beyond the material realm, as it remains true regardless of if it is percieved or known, or apparent to any of the senses.

But math is verified by real world experience. 2 pencils + 2 pencils = 4 pencils, and you can use the length of pencils to verify the theorem as well. So, we've seen an extremely close representation. We've seen the essence of a right triangle, in the same way we've seen the essence of a person, and the essence of a human being will change as humans evolve different features over time, maybe larger eyes or smaller frames. The essence of humanity is changing as we evolve and hence not bound to some permanent, ever-lasting higher form.

wasnt arguing that, just that platonic forms can into real. i dont think he even argued that the concept of forms had universal applicibility. he would be wrong if he said so, afaik you can only really apply platonic forms to math, thought/mind, and the soul.

pretty sure he did tho :F

well then he would be wrong. we cant all be aristotle.

forms still into real tho.

...

I don't think they do.
Anyways, my dickcheese transcends god, therefore it is reality pre-divine.
Check Mate atheists.

Problem, trilby?

...

*le tip*

Hello there Goldberg, why are you not in a pit getting burned?

Unless you're a sandnigger or a plain old nigger you have no excuse.

Christians depended on Greek philosophy for most of their arguments. Plato and Neo-platonists weren't trying to prove Aphrodite existed, they were arguing about The One. To Plato, God is transcendent-the highest and most perfect being-and one who uses eternal forms, or archetypes, to fashion a universe that is eternal and uncreated. the source of all reality, etc…

...

*tips fedora*

Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior.

*tips cowboy hat*

Reminder that the kikes managed to subvert the original already. It's at least 40% jewish according to jdar.

STOP RUINING AND REMAKING FILMS GOD FUCKING DAMN
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

...

...

WE

incorrect

mathematics allows for an infinite space inside a finite space

it's called Aleph

...

I had to pause the video twice, I thought it was some shit in the background.

Worst fucking trailer of the year.
Worst.