Skip to comments.8 reasons for Catholics to see the upcoming Noah movie
Posted on 03/16/2014 9:25:11 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
I was invited to attend a screening of the movie Noah on Thursday March 6. The movie starring Russell Crowe as Noah (and including Jennifer Connelly, Emma Watson, Anthony Hopkins and Ray Winstone) is set to be released on March 28, 2014. While reviews are embargoed, I wanted to share a few specific thoughts in response to all the chatter out there from people who haven't seen the film.
There has been some concern expressed in the Christian community due to the fact that the movie is not a literal depiction of the scriptural account of Noah (chapters 5-9 from the Book of Genesis). There has also been concern expressed about the choices the director and screenwriters made adding details to the account that weren't in Genesis. For example, how did Noah build an ark that big? How did Noah react to the death and destruction of all things living in the world outside of the ark? Did Noah's contemporaries know the floods were going to come and what (if anything) did they do to fight for their lives? How did 7 pairs of each animal come to be in the ark and stay calm for months on board?
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.org ...
Oh, get bent Alex. Run to the mods.
In the advertisement they call it the most epic story ever told. Really?
I’;; tale “The Passion of the Christ” as the mmost epic story ever told!
Ill take The Passion of the Christ as the most epic story ever told!
The review doesn’t seem to bad. Might be worth seeing on the big screen.
I just go to movies because I love movies. I really don’t pay much mind to “issues”. I am there to be entertained not to have a political or religious discussion.
I suppose no matter how literal one takes a Biblical story and translates it to the silver screen, it will miss it by an inch (best case, highly unlikely) or a mile or several miles (most likely case). As much as the film industry attempts to reverently (rare in more recent decades)present these wonderful depictions, the word of God is best understood straight from one’s own reading of it,from the pulpit or as read by family members or friends. My two cents. God Bless.
It looks like a very interesting movie, and I’m curious to see how they handle the story. I believe they might even bring ideas from “The Epic of Gilgamesh”, which is another, and similar, flood story from, I believe, the ancient Sumerian culture.
I’m fine with spreading the word of yet another phony movie from the cesspool that distorts our inherited knowledge of western religion.
We are getting a flood (pun intended) of Christian and religious message flicks. Son of God, Noah, Heaven is Real, and I forgot the title of the family film by Focus on the Family.
There are a lot of “scholars” here who criticize, nitpick, and try to run people off. But I think we should be thankful that we’re getting what’s coming out instead of Hangover IV.
If it is as I seem to recall hearing somewhere an environmental flick, I probably won’t like it.
But I am not expecting it to be an OT “Jesus of Nazareth” so I might enjoy it as my expectations are pretty low.
“I just go to movies because I love movies. I really dont pay much mind to issues. I am there to be entertained not to have a political or religious discussion.”
I Haven’t seen this movie nor am I likely to since I don’t doubt, based upon life experience that it would anger me at some point. Maybe I miss a good movie here and there but I save myself a hell of a lot of annoyance and regret of the ticket price and time.
Unfortunately film makers don’t just tell tales to entertain anymore. Today they propagandize by forcefully presenting a series of related events that they hope will result in implanting a particular view. Could many of them even make a “Maltese Falcon” now without inserting their weird religion into it?. In the matter of any “True Story” or a story drawn from some actual source Fidelity is a thing of the first import. Many people believe without much reflection things that are presented to them in an orderly, sensical way.
Propagandists know this and value the phenomenon. I miss going to the movies and enjoying a well told tale. What recent movie/s that you saw was in your opinion nothing more than a well told and entertaining tale?
The solution to this ‘problem’ is far better catechism and far better Pre-Canna instruction.
The root of the problem is the very poor leadership of the local bishops and their instructions to the parish level priests as to what is truly relevant to the weekly sermon and religious instruction. Couple that with the abandonment of the Catholic Schools by many of the diocese and we leave exposed more and more Catholic souls to the spiritual death that is the secular schools and their societal teachings.
It is difficult to combat hours of highly secular and sinful teachings a week in a single hour every Sunday. That is IF the ‘Catholic’ actually bothers to show up every Sunday. We already KNOW that fewer than forty percent actually do.
This is NOT a problem with the ordinary Catholic it is the direct result and problem caused by the terrible leadership and almost every level of the Church hierarchy.
Simply put: Actions and decisions have consequences. To get remarried after a divorce that is not subject to annulment is to live in a state of sin. It is committing fornication. It is no less a mortal sin than homosexual sex or bestiality. They are all sins of the flesh. All cut a person off from God’s grace and expose them to the terrible truth of an eternity in Hell without the benefit of being in the presence of God.
inadvertently posted comment here as apposed to the proper board. Please ignore post.
A hodgepodge of thoughts: Greatest biblical epic: The 10 Commandments. I don’t go to movies expecting ‘literal’ interpretation of the Bible; However the closest is probably “The Gospel of John.”
We, as Christians, should use biblical movies to further the spreading of our faith.
And, most importantly about this movie: “will it reveal the true reason why Noah didn’t make sure a pair of unicorns didn’t get on the Ark.”
No kidding, huh?
You might like this comment from Mark Steyn [WARNING: Plot spoiler for “Non-Stop”]:
“But even so a film still needs to be about something. Hitchcock called it “the MacGuffin” - the pretext that kick-starts the plot, and explains why good guys and bad guys are chasing each other up hill and down dale. It’s the secret formula, the microfilm, whatever - see The 39 Steps, The Lady Vanishes, North By Northwest... Hitchcock defined the MacGuffin as “the mechanical element that usually crops up in any story. In crook stories it is almost always the necklace and in spy stories it is almost always ‘the papers’.” A MacGuffin in that sense principally motivates the villains.
What motivates the villains these days? In the perfunctory “monologue-ing” speech in Non-Stop (I’d preface this with “Warning: Plot Spoiler”, but it barely qualifies as a “plot”, and therefore can’t really be said to make much difference anyway), the head bad guy explains that his father died on 9/11 and so he wants to blow up a plane to show how, despite post-9/11 security, it’s still really easy to blow up a plane...”
For the biblical Noah, this is the “MacGuffin”:
“And the Lord said, I will wipe this human race I have created from the face of the earth. Yes, and I will destroy every living thingall the people, the large animals, the small animals that scurry along the ground, and even the birds of the sky. I am sorry I ever made them. But Noah found favor with the Lord.”
In the movie? Well, I haven’t seen it. If I hear good things about it, I might risk getting a used DVD someday from Amazon.
I don’t think the blogger wrote “8 reasons for Calvinist to go see the movie”. I think he said Catholic and was expressing his views [personal]. I probably will not see the movie as I tend to not go to movies in general.
Now as to whether Alex goes to see Noah or not, well I guess that has been Predestined positively or negatively.
From what I understand the “Noah” movie is nothing but left wing environmentalist propaganda. But then, as Alex said, Catholics don’t believe the events in the Noah story ever happened anyway.
Yeah; I think that's about right.
I dont think the blogger wrote 8 reasons for Calvinist to go see the movie. I think he said Catholic and was expressing his views [personal]. I probably will not see the movie as I tend to not go to movies in general.
Now as to whether Alex goes to see Noah or not, well I guess that has been Predestined positively or negatively.
Because as we all "know," only Calvinists believe the events of Genesis 1-11 actually happened. After all, higher criticism is one of those Catholic distinctives, just like the rosary! Though one wonders why this Catholic distinctive didn't exist until it was invented by radical Protestants in late nineteenth century Germany.
You've never seen a Seder `Olam poster on the wall of a yeshivah, have you?
Still not an excuse to lash out like a 10 year old who was denied a Shetland pony for his birthday.
Does it indeed? Does it seem right to go on a thread that has nothing to do with you with the sole intent of stirring up bad feelings by posting an insulting and 100% FALSE list of lies?
I’ve been looking forward to the Noah movie but am disappointed that it might only focus on environmentalism. The central theme of the Flood must be God’s displeasure with sin and human wickedness. As John Paul, Benedict, and Francis have all pointed out, disrespect for human life devastates creation. Isn’t this common sense? If people don’t respect and defend human life, why should they care about the inanimate earth it dwells upon?
“Worship of the natural always leads to the unnatural.”
God says you and your religion are wrong...Why do you continue with the false teaching???
Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
And beyond that, if your religion wants to keep you guys under the law, if the wife commits adultery, she is to be killed which would make you a widower and legal to remarry anyway...
And Waaaayyyy beyond that is the grace of God...For Protestants who believe the scriptures, we're not in trouble at all for remarrying...We are not under the law...
Rom_5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Why does your religion so corrupt and pervert the scriptures???
Russell Crowe is not Catholic and from what I can find out the movie has nothing to do with the environment.
They probably won't check the bible to see if the movie is accurate anyway...
Bible, what Bible, never heard of it.
That Jesus spoke so unequivocally about divorce in Mark 10 , and even more so in Luke 16 (Every one that put away his wife and marry another commits adultery. Every one), would suggest to me that Matthew 19 refers to something else. Perhaps "whosoever put away his wife except it be for fornication" is referring to a common law wife, ie it is not lawful to put away your wife unless you are not truly married to begin with, but living in a state of fornication already.
I have heard that the unicorns were too clever for their own good -- they ran away and hid themselves from Noah.
That’s one reason I love watching a lot of classic, older films from the days where Hollywood was more concerned about entertaining us rather than spewing cultural Marxism at our expense.
Are you Alex? and are you a Calvinist?
Let’s assume you are not Alex and not Calvinist, the Rosary is a prayer tradition and is distinctively Catholic and yet nobody has to ever pray the Catholic and one is still a Catholic. Higher critical biblical scholarship is a 19th century German Protestant movement, on that point you are correct. Yes, Higher Criticism has been used in Catholic circles since Pope Pius Apostolic letter allowing Catholic biblical scholars to use that “Methodology”. I have, as I have said here before, problems with the extensive use of that methodology and think many of its adherents are dissenters and push unorthodox doctrines. Fr. Hans Kung is perhaps one of the foremost theologians who embraced the higher critical method, as did Americans like Fr. Charles Curran, and the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, edited by Fr. Raymond Brown, uses it extensively.
The rest of your post had nothing to do with being Alex nor being Calvinist. What was the point of the preamble, then?
The point is that Zionist and I have been down this road before with the higher criticism stuff. The Catholic blogger endorsed nothing regarding higher criticism, so Zionist argument was 100% dishonest and made implicit accusations about the Catholic blogger that were outright false.
The central points of the blog were that the movie is not written from a Literal line by line account from Genesis, never the less, its stays true to the core of the salvific truths and in a pretty much direct way, is a pro-life movie, which coming from Hollywood, is a miracle in itself.
Given the points above, the author hypothesizes that those in American society who are more secular might be inclined to see the movie and that could open up a chance for dialogue with said individuals and some of those said folks might return back to their Christian roots, if they are lapsed, or may be open to exploring the Christian Message for the first time.
So the 2nd part of the post was directed at Zionist. The OP of mine was addressed to you as again, the Catholic blogger wrote why in his opinion, Catholics should not ex ante reject seeing the movie. Again, he said nothing regarding Calvinist or whatever group Zionist associates with.
For argument's sake, let's assume again that Zionist Conspirator and I are not the same person. Given that few people have actually seen the completed film to date, I think the above bolded statement is far too assumptive, especially given the director's prior work. We should revisit this once the movie is out and the full plot is known.
One does not have to believe that the first part of Genesis is allegorical to interpret it differently from the fundamentalists. Whoever wrote it just accepted the cosmology of the time, which is quite different from our own. But the writer(s) had a very different theological view of the Creation than their pagan neighbors. It is the view that we find in the Book of Daniel, that the Most High God directs the course of events.
So what about evolution, et al,? At bottom is the assertion of a cosmology very different from that of the ancient pagans, one that takes for granted that blind chance governs all actions. That all appearance of order is an illusion. That nothing exists but what is analogous to what is presented to our senses, things we call matter.
The term [Fundamentalism] was born when conservative Protestants in early-20th-century America committed themselves to defend the five "fundamentals" of their faith -- the inerrancy of the Bible, virgin birth and deity of Jesus, doctrine of atonement, bodily resurrection of Jesus, and His imminent return.
-- from the thread The many forms of fundamentalism
Fundamentalist: A term created during the turn-of-the-20th-century Protestant church splits to define those who held to the fundamentals of Christianitythe inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth of Jesus and his literal resurrection from the dead. The term is now considered pejorative. (Wheaton College philosophy professor Alvin Plantinga famously observed, The full meaning of the term can be given by something like stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine.)
-- from the thread New Kids In The Flock
Well, again, the Catholic blogger, if we are to take him at his word, stated he had seen an “advanced screening of the movie. I agree, the director’s prior work, or some of it, is problematic, and one such movie was clearly a shot at the Catholic Church in Ireland and how Irish society and thus the Catholic Church as well dealt with young women who were pregnant before marriage. Of course this was another time and place and I guess reflected a time when out of wedlock pregnancy had a different stigma than it does today.
So I agree, I have not seen the movie nor seen an advanced screening and will wait and decide whether or not to see it once the full plot is know and others have a chance to review it and give an account of the plot and whether the substance of its message is consistent with the OT and even more so, Historic Christian theology. I have liked some of Russell Crowe’s work in the past, Gladiator, Beautiful Mind, and might see his work in this film, again, maybe not.
But back to my OP, the Catholic Blogger was only offering a review of the film and making a case why “Catholics” should not just write the film off based on criticism that is being levied against the film from some circles.
God is pretty clear about divorce in the Old Testament as well:
Reason number #3
My daughter's 6th grade catechist told the class that the Noah's Ark story of the Bible is a myth. What is the Catholic belief? I watched a documentary on the Discovery Channel that showed part of what they thought was the Ark. The teacher told her it couldn't be true, because he couldn't have built that big of a boat in those days; it would've taken too long.
Thanks for your response.
The Church has no dogmatic views one way or another. Huge floods were common in ancient Mesopotamia, so the Noah story could well have a basis in fact (see, for instance, the colossal flood) in antiquity.
Nor is the problem of a world-destroying flood so problematic if humanity was confined to a fairly small geographical area.
Bottom line: We don't know enough to make very many confident proclamations about how much of the Noah story is to be taken as scientific fact, particularly since the author of Genesis had no interest in writing science.
Luk_3:36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
BTW-I believe this is the same Mark Shea that our Catholic friends here fawn over.