It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Vatican says 'Avatar' is no masterpiece

page: 9
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 06:41 PM
That's funny, and here I thought the Vatican was no masterpiece! Who in their right mind listens to anything 2,000 years of scams has to say?

posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 11:54 PM
reply to post by ReelView

Actually, the Vatican is FULL of masterpeices! But that's neither here nor there. But I did remember a little something that could explain why the Vatican took a dump on James Cameron's newest Masterpeice... He was the Executive Producer of a little documentary a couple of years ago... The Lost Tomb of Jesus Maybe this is just payback for the exposure to the millenia old lies of the Church that they successfully swept under the rug...

posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 09:43 PM
i dont know how the vatican can say crap like this....they have all these patron saints for travel and crap yet when a great movie like avartar comes out they have to blast it for the worship of nature... thats why catholicism is the most the worlds stupidest religion and should be done away with

posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 11:05 PM
the vatican is pissy because it is losing members of thier church's faster than ever before

posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 03:44 AM
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

This thread also brings to my mind the recent film " Angels And Demons " . I wonder how the Vatican came out of that Fictional Film looking so Innocent against those Evil Iluminati ? ...........Hmm ...... A Good Suggested Origional Script Rewrite along with some fine Backing maybe ?

posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 04:48 AM
reply to post by impaired

Frankly I don't see the point to worshiping an intergalactic self-fathered Jewish virgin nailed to two boards, either. Frankly if it comes down to worshiping the sun or worshiping the Vatican's Savior on a Stick, I'm going to worship the sun.
The sun can power my watch. Jesus can't. And any god that can't power digital technology isn't much of a god, now is it?

posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 05:55 AM
reply to post by Slash

that is awesome.
there is a god, lol!
thank you, lord for letting us (holy) see the light of the dark side.

posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 10:11 PM
reply to post by impaired

didn't read all the responses so not sure if someone posted this. It's OBVIOUS why they would come out and say something like that.
Research Paganism and you will see why.
Paganism was around BEFORE christianity. It lasted until the Christians waged war on Pagans and deemed them all satan worshippers. 99% of Christians have no idea what kind

posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 10:18 PM
reply to post by ReactionaryRetards

I am in now way endoring any kind of religious this post anyway
, but it occured to me that if a group such as the Catholic church which preaches the complicated doctrine of the Trinity cannot see what a great teaching tool that Avatar could be to help people understand this concept.

You know, how 2 completely different entitities are actually the same person. The same yet different. One is a giant blue alien and the other a disabled human marine, but yet they are both the same. Jake Sully took the form of Jakesully so that the Navi would accept him and learn from him and he from they. In that process both learned to appreciate the other in ways neither expected or imagined.

Anywho, I think Avatar would be an interesting object lesson for those who would try to teach how God could be different entities yet the same.

edit on 14-10-2010 by JudgedCover because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 10:54 AM
1/ Insofar as anything 'exists' at all, it does this through contextual relating to something else (and ofcourse vice versa). This is valid for both the socalled 'physical' world as well as for concepts. A conceptual reality-tunnel, map-of-the-territory, model of existence, ideology etc. can only present 'truth' according to the context is operates from. E.g. its basic assumptions, parameters and methodology.

No matter how 'selfproving' such conceptual models of existence postulate themselves to be, they will always be closed systems, bubbles of self-reinforcing 'local' truth. And even taking bredth, width and depth of the basic epistemological tools into consideration, we can only talk about approximative truth; the approximation decided by the extent of what such a 'bubble' initially encompasses.

2/ Amongst such 'bubble-models' organised religion clearly demonstrates the most narrow epistemological platform. And especially the Abramic religions are examples of this. A few entangled doctrines, based on a narrative which practically doesn't relate to anything else than itself in any meaningful way, forms the basis of the most powerful ideological movement in recent historical time.

3/ This said, I must admit to a great disappointment in the movie 'Avatar'. It isn't much better than organised religion. And I'm saying this from a background of being a vegetarian, treehugger, environmentalist and whatever since 1965, the practical owner of an ecological farm since 1972, and on a social level being practically involved in alternative lifestyle etc since the late seventies (fair-price healthfood businessman, healing, organisational). The movie is primitive, not much better than any other superhero story and presents the 'nature' perspective in such a way, that I found it embarrasing.

Two posters here have approached the topic from perspectives similar to the above. Durabys and Dr. Love.

NO-ONE having the slightest firsthand information on our Gaian eco-system can possibly postulate, that any great deal of symbiosis is intrinsic in our global bio-sphere. Recycling, yes, but that's not quite the same. Nature-romantic ideas of symbiosis-potential are usually results of inspirational propaganda or from spending one's whole life in a city.

And as to Dr. Love: You're right about the approach to the topic here. It deserves a broader debate-background than the black/white entrenchments shown here.

Personally I could suggest e.g. the mahayana buddhist: Illusion=reality (samsara=nirvana); Gandhi's spiritual/political basis (Jain); utilitarian (and non-religious) morality; practical application of principles around liberal society etc.

I for one, don't want my ideological basis represented by such 'small bubbled' trash as 'Avatar'. People could think I'm retarded.

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:45 PM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 11:53 PM
What I find absolutely hillarious is how the vatican have condemned nearly everything at some point in time. Everything they claim is evil! It is evil because god says so.

They condemned nearly everything... yet the one true evil that persists, they have never condemned America or any of their actions in regards to vanity, greed, corruption, murder etc. etc.

Come to think of it Vatican + America = match made in hell. They are the same hypocrite, the same kind of animal.

Oh wait... that's right Vatican/America/London = trinity. Right, forgot... sorry guys, please don't slap me. Everything is clear as mud.

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 12:05 AM
reply to post by impaired

I don't see the harm in looking up to nature - at all.

neither do i, i never have understood why any worship of nature would be considered bad, maybe because it would take away any power they have now? as people will worship things that cannot give power to other people.

surely it would make sense though, if people believed in nature to the point of it being a religion, for a start our whole systems would be centered around looking after the earth, and many people would have more respect for the earth and living things around them. but it would go against how we do things now, profits and money dictate everything, and sometimes nature gets in the way, so we have to tear the place up $$$$$.

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:40 PM
Yea this is rather confusing... almost every religion states nature is a direct result of god, and its prosperity determines god being pleased or displeased with man.
So why would nature be bad.

new topics

<< 6  7  8   >>

log in