I noticed you all watched a bunch of stuff that might be bad

[Andruschak]

Someone tried to claim it was since Gene Roddenberry was a committed atheist. I don’t believe it for one second. One has only to watch the series and see that despite his objections there were several religious undertones in it.

Anti-christian is the wrong term for most Science Fiction. A better term is a-christian.Without Christianity, and mostly without religion, either. Most SF is not anti-religion. But neither is religion a major part in most plots. Some writers, especially in the Fantasy Genre, will have religious elements.

Note, I have been reading SF from the time I learned to read, about 1951 or so.

 

[goofyjim]

Anti-christian is the wrong term for most Science Fiction. A better term is a-christian.Without Christianity, and mostly without religion, either. Most SF is not anti-religion. But neither is religion a major part in most plots. Some writers, especially in the Fantasy Genre, will have religious elements.

Note, I have been reading SF from the time I learned to read, about 1951 or so.

It is not necessary for religion to be a part of SF anymore than science is required to be part of religious entertainment. But did you ever watch Star Trek. The Captain holds a marriage ceremony in Balance of Terror episode, Uhura mentions the Son of God in the tag scene of the Bread and Circuses episode. If Mr. Roddenberry was so opposed to religion being in his series why did he let these things slip through. You will find more religion in there than you think if you explore enough. It is just that it is open to all religions instead of just Christianity, as we all should be.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

It is not necessary for religion to be a part of SF anymore than science is required to be part of religious entertainment. But did you ever watch Star Trek. The Captain holds a marriage ceremony in Balance of Terror episode, Uhura mentions the Son of God in the tag scene of the Bread and Circuses episode. If Mr. Roddenberry was so opposed to religion being in his series why did he let these things slip through. You will find more religion in there than you think if you explore enough. It is just that it is open to all religions instead of just Christianity, as we all should be.

Why? What exactly does ‘open’ mean?

Why should we be open to other religions if the word of God is True? “Oh, I guess I’ll be a Scientologist now.”

 

[deb1]

It is not necessary for religion to be a part of SF anymore than science is required to be part of religious entertainment. But did you ever watch Star Trek. The Captain holds a marriage ceremony in Balance of Terror episode, Uhura mentions the Son of God in the tag scene of the Bread and Circuses episode. If Mr. Roddenberry was so opposed to religion being in his series why did he let these things slip through. You will find more religion in there than you think if you explore enough. It is just that it is open to all religions instead of just Christianity, as we all should be.

As a fan of Star Trek, I agree with you. There is nothing in Star Trek that contradicts religious sensibilities.

Heck, if people are going to stop watching Star Trek because Roddenbery was an atheist then you better not read Charles Dickens. He was not an atheist but he left the mother of his 11 children for a much younger actress!!(I am a fan of Dickens by the way)

As I have gotten older I do find problems with the fact that Star Trek depicts a near perfect human society. I would like to see some of the disenfranchised and poor humans. Not everyone in that society must live on a star ship or belong to their military. Of course, this is a subject for a different thread.

 

[Nick_Alexander]

Heck, if people are going to stop watching Star Trek because Roddenbery was an atheist then you better not read Charles Dickens.

Here’s a better example. It is widely regarded that the absolute best portrayal of Jesus Christ on film was Pasolini’s “The Gospel According to St. Matthew” (imdb.com/title/tt0058715/)). The movie is highly revered amongst all critics, and has even made the Pope’s list of top 45 seminal films (the Vatican 45).

Pasolini, however, was an atheist. His Canterbury Tales (1972) is considered by at least one film historian, to be the most anti-religious film of all time.

Most interesting…

 

[goofyjim]

Why? What exactly does ‘open’ mean?

Why should we be open to other religions if the word of God is True? “Oh, I guess I’ll be a Scientologist now.”

So you require only a Catholic perspective of life? Open means accepting others and not requiring them to convert. Living in peace with our neighbors despite the fact they don’t believe the same thing. If we don’t get this message by now there will always be conflict.

 

[Nick_Alexander]

So you require only a Catholic perspective of life? Open means accepting others and not requiring them to convert. Living in peace with our neighbors despite the fact they don’t believe the same thing. If we don’t get this message by now there will always be conflict.

I suppose you didn’t get the memo.

 

[goofyjim]

I suppose you didn’t get the memo.

I got the memo. I just choose to live in peaceful coexistence. I am not looking for an idealized Catholic universe as though that will solve everything. Humanity is not meant to be one big homogeneous unit. We are all different and will always be so and one of those ways is different beliefs. Our Lady of Fatima said respect all religions and that is what John Paul II went to great strides to do.

 

[Nick_Alexander]

I got the memo. I just choose to live in peaceful coexistence. I am not looking for an idealized Catholic universe as though that will solve everything. Humanity is not meant to be one big homogeneous unit. We are all different and will always be so and one of those ways is different beliefs. Our Lady of Fatima said respect all religions and that is what John Paul II went to great strides to do.

This is what you want to do, but it is not what Christ intended.

To quote the memo:

By means of the Church, Christ wants to be present in every historical epoch, every place on earth and every sector of society, in order to reach every person, so that there may be one flock and one shepherd.(cf John 10:16)

You are also confusing Our Lady of Fatima’s mandate to “respect all religions” as a means to bypass the Great Commission. One can be called to evangelize, while still respecting religions. I, for one, can p(name removed by moderator)oint particular aspects of different beliefs that can make my love for Christ that much more pertinent. But note that these beliefs are true insofar they point to the fullness of the truth.

John Paul II also pushed for evangelization. Just ask these guys.

You cannot reconcile the belief systems of all the world. Illogical. All belief systems outside of the Catholic faith are incorrect or incomplete in some area. Christ would want every Catholic to take heed of the Vatican’s directives and fulfill each and every one’s calling as an ambassador for Christ. Do not confuse your compassion for differing beliefs as being “tolerant”, for it is the exact opposite.

Every person is called to know Christ in the fullness of His Eucharistic glory, no matter what circumstances they are born into. We are being indifferent to Christ Himself if we choose to ignore His mandate.

ETA: You may want to read what JPII really said about the subject of evangelization, before you choose to misrepresent him.

 

[DaveBj]

If I want to watch a movie that I know has language issues, I just wait until it is broadcast on TNT or one of those other cable channels. The naughty words are overdubbed or in some other way rendered unintelligible.

DaveBj

 

[goofyjim]

Besides, how does anyone know what I watch? Are there cameras installed in my home that big brother is watching on? If so, I’ll find them and destroy them for the sake of watching what I want to watch. What may be bad for you could be okay for someone else. It is not a one-size-fits-all thing.

 

[gam197]

originally posted by Eric
There is no shortage of literature, television, music or motion pictures that fail to live up to this standard. The current pope’s emphasis on Gregorian chant and the dismissal of some of the more modern musicians from services held at the Vatican is instructive here. Art is dead and modernity has completely lost its capacity to please God through creative forms. All that is left is the repetition of the works of the old masters, who are long dead. Even vernacular language itself has given rise to all manner of impiety. The next time any of us seek amusement from some stage play or compact disc, we would do well to look upon a Crucifix and meditate on the awesome price of our momentary
and shallow pleasure.

That is why stories like Narnia and Lord of the Ring were such great hits and hopefully more of the old masters stories will be told.

originally posted by Nick Alexander
You cannot reconcile the belief systems of all the world. Illogical. All belief systems outside of the Catholic faith are incorrect or incomplete in some area. Christ would want every Catholic to take heed of the Vatican’s directives and fulfill each and every one’s calling as an ambassador for Christ. Do not confuse your compassion for differing beliefs as being “tolerant”, for it is the exact opposite.

Every person is called to know Christ in the fullness of His Eucharistic glory, no matter what circumstances they are born into. We are being indifferent to Christ Himself if we choose to ignore His mandate.

Movies can be helpful in this are. Historical movies bring about discussion of what really did take place and from whose perception.

The most successful movies have great moral messages often based on some tenets of Christian philosophy. But if you promote any of these movies as “Catholic”, many people would shut down and wouldn’t watch.

originally posted** by DaveBj**
If I want to watch a movie that I know has language issues, I just wait until it is broadcast on TNT or one of those other cable channels. The naughty words are overdubbed or in some other way rendered unintelligible.

If we could tone down the short skirts, cleavage and men without shirts on cable, that would help as just flipping through the channels shows enough.

 

[Conservative]

“Any trend to produce programmes and products – including animated films and video games – which in the name of entertainment exalt violence and portray anti-social behaviour or the trivialization of human sexuality is a perversion,” the pope said.

its from wikipedia but um alot of shows on here…
… fall under that category

that was funny.
but seriously they do

Sad but true - the media is a mess.
Even watching the news - you know morning time, dinner time, prime time - doesn’t matter. Even the news slips in items that aren’t family fare - and the commercials not always either.

I don’t read / use wikipedia. But we don’t need wikipedia to tell us. The saddest thing is - in the USA anyway - the society of “free choice”. Choice usually being in regards to life or death of the unborn. Isn’t it amazing how everyone has a choice until they want something decent? In the land of “Free Choice” - only decency is locked out. And that’s the sentiment you should use in any petitions, complaints, etc. you use - I do.

 

[gam197]

originally posted** by Andruschak**
I do not have a TV set, not since 1985. I rarely go to movies, maybe one every year ior two, some G-rated animated film. I do not read nor watch porn (no interest to a eunuch like myself), I do not play violent games, nor watch violent videoes, DVDs, nor anything else.

Could this culture go back to this? What color are your cats?

originally posted by Conservative
Sad but true - the media is a mess.
Even watching the news - you know morning time, dinner time, prime time - doesn’t matter. Even the news slips in items that aren’t family fare - and the commercials not always either.

It may have to do with the free market(movies, TV, games) which is a good thing.

There is so much competition for ratings and they do need an audience that they keep stretching the limits.

 

[gam197]

Copied this from You Tube posted by lionheart on “Pope Benedict and Muslim Controversy”

". Gandhi pointed out 80 years ago that "Main task of Christian missionaries is to UNDERMINE others faith (ref Young India: November 8, 1927).

1. Gandhi said its unfortunate that missionaries never look into controversial (READ IT AS EVIL) teaching of Bible.

1. Gandhi said “Western missionaries represent the SPIRIT OF SATAN… And Satan’s successes are the greatest when appears with the name of God on his lips. (Young India: September 8, 1920)”

I am not sure if this is true but should the USCCB films be more Catholic?

 

[Nick_Alexander]

I am not sure if this is true but should the USCCB films be more Catholic?

Last time… the list on the USCCB was not created by the USCCB. It came from the Vatican, presumably by Pope John Paul the Great.

The films were listed in three separate sections: Religion, Values and Art. “Gandhi” the movie was not listed in the Religion section, and it was not an endorsement of the exact same beliefs that Gandhi had… the movie’s focus was more on the peaceful revolution that he started thru non-violence… something that we can all learn from.

Even so, had you read my post in its entirity, you’d understand that the point was that the medium of film is much, much bigger than a summation of vices, and that the Pope’s approval of many films that appear to be contrary to some on this board… which boat do you want to be a part of?

 

[gam197]

originally posted** by Nick Alexander**
Last time… the list on the USCCB was not created by the USCCB. It came from the Vatican, presumably by Pope John Paul the Great.

Just because it comes from the Vatican doesn’t mean the Pope personally approved each of these movies. I don’t believe he even had the time to watch them.

This list came from the Vatican, probably a film office. So does the Vatican newspaper L’OSSERVATORE ROMANO and many times they are way off the radar on issues.

I do understand the Catholic position on films, books, etc, that a film can be viewed for its moral value even though there would be conflict to Catholic values.

That may be why a film like Dracula, “Nosferatu” which would have no value to that Catholic mind would be on this list. They may see it as a way to confront the falsehood?

The question is in the light of today’s films, what can be allowed?

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I do know that since my Tiber Swim, there are any number of books, TV shows, and movies that I can no longer enjoy as ‘mindless entertainment.’

My eyes have been opened to the casual immorality touted on many fronts.

 

[Nick_Alexander]

Just because it comes from the Vatican doesn’t mean the Pope personally approved each of these movies. I don’t believe he even had the time to watch them.

So the last Pope, who was an actor and a playwright before his ordination to the priesthood, exhibited no interest whatsoever in the arts?

Perhaps you didn’t get this memo, which he released when the Vatican 45 was introduced.

Or perhaps you’d want to read his Letter To Artists.

This list came from the Vatican, probably a film office.

Nonetheless, the Pope personally approved of this list.

I do understand the Catholic position on films, books, etc, that a film can be viewed for its moral value even though there would be conflict to Catholic values.

That may be why a film like Dracula, “Nosferatu” which would have no value to that Catholic mind would be on this list. They may see it as a way to confront the falsehood?

The question is in the light of today’s films, what can be allowed?

This is the wrong question, in light of the vision that Peter received in Acts. All are allowed… but what is most beneficial? Truth, goodness and beauty… not bad attributes to shoot for…

Perhaps you’d want to read this article as well.

 

[gam197]

originally posted by Nick Alexander
So the last Pope, who was an actor and a playwright before his ordination to the priesthood, exhibited no interest whatsoever in the arts?

I am not saying that at all. The Church and the Popes have always had an interest in the arts. In these articles Pope John Paul II is calling creative artists, musicians, writers, poets, film makers to the highest standard.

Pope John Paul II…
Unfortunately though, some cinema productions merit criticism and disapproval, even severe criticism and disapproval. This is the case when films distort the truth, oppress genuine freedom, or show scenes of sex and violence offensive to human dignity. It is a fallacy for film-makers to do this in the name of free artistic expression.

Freedom is an indivisible human good; it cannot be invoked to justify moral evil or absolve degrading behaviour, particularly in view of the uncritical way in which most people accept the cinema’s powerful and persuasive influence. In encouraging and recognizing films which strengthen and uplift the human spirit and in discouraging the production and viewing of films which depict and appear to sanction human depravity, the Church is not seeking to limit creativity but to liberate creative talent and challenge it to pursue the highest ideals of this art form.

1. Genuine art is about truth, goodness and beauty. Its purpose must be to serve the integral well-being and development of those to whom it is directed.

Your last article tells how selections was chosen for the list and will be chosen in the future.

Titled simply “Some Important Films,” the list is simply a cross section of outstanding films, chosen by a committee of twelve international movie scholars appointed by the head of the pontifical commission, Archbishop John Foley…

For example, silent cinema pioneer D. W. Griffith, honored on the list for his ambitious epic Intolerance, may be better known for his landmark, deeply controversial The Birth of a Nation, a Civil War epic marred by much racist imagery.

Though undeniably an “important film,” Birth of a Nation also “merit criticism and disapproval,” to use the pope’s words, for “distorting the truth” and even “oppressing genuine freedom…

In recognizing the merits of these particular films, the commission did not endorse everything these films contain, or gave them any kind of imprimatur or blanket ecclesiastical approval…

The list is not infallible, or even authoritative. Catholics may reasonably take issue with the inclusion of certain titles…

There are also absent titles I would gladly add, above all Bresson’s Diary of a Country Priest…

What other films from the last ten years might warrant inclusion in such a follow-up list? Many films celebrated today, such as Million Dollar Baby and Sideways, seem unlikely to generate much interest decades from now. The Passion of the Christ, on the other hand, seems likely to have a long-term impact that over time would make it an increasingly obvious candidate.

Million Dollar Baby and Sideways, no--------we are lucky we have so many creative forms of art, music, poetry, novels,plays,TV shows, films, games to pick from.