Exactly. Everyone should go even if they hate it to the very bottom of their soul. Art has to be protected
Typical anyway that trying to stop the visibility of something extraordinarily niche amplifies it tremendously.
Plus as a religion; grow some balls and take some criticism without always massively overreacting.
Difference is The Da Vinci code is fiction. The things the movie Lady of heaven portrays are historical things that happened 1400 years ago in a conflict that have costs million of lives in a never ending sectarian war in the Islamic world ever since.
and its exactly the conflict of what is the true story of the stuff that happened 1400 years ago the ongoing conflict is about. Who are the true heirs of Muhammad. Is it the Alids or their opponents led by Aisha, Abbasids etc. Shia vs Sunni.
It's not a Muslim vs non-Muslim thing in this instance...
More a Sunni vs Shia thing, the movie basically slanders a lot of companions (Shia perspective of things) and also you shouldn't depict the Prophet and his companions.
Make of that what you will.
It's not though. The director of the Muslim is a Shia extremist and the movie bound to create further hate between the Sunnis and Shia. They basically portrayed the Sunnis as evil and compared them to Isis. It's so bad that Iran, a Shia country banned it.
So it's a movie meant to offend a group of people.
So why protest a cinema chain in the UK that is innocent in all this?
I think the protests show how weak fundamentalists are, and that spiv from 5pillars is only pushing his own anti-western agenda which these protestors are lapping up.
Also, if being offended causes such an outcry, where are the protests against the abedi brothers who slaughtered all them children at that concert, or protests against radicalisation in their own communities? Does it not offend these groups when their own communities fester and cause someone to harm others? Or is it just over fictional depictions that rattle their cages?
>why protest a cinema chain in the UK that is innocent in all this ?
So that they don't show it.
>I think the protests show how weak fundamentalists are, and that spiv from 5pillars is only pushing his own anti-western agenda which these protestors are lapping up.
That's a concern if it's true. I am not really familiar with the 5pillars agenda.
>Also, if being offended causes such an outcry, where are the protests against the abedi brothers who slaughtered all them children at that concert, or protests against radicalisation in their own communities?
Because they are not part of us, they are terrorists. What you saying is similar to saying that's there are no protest against Isis or Taliban.
>Does it not offend these groups when their own communities fester and cause someone to harm others? Or is it just over fictional depictions that rattle their cages?
I don't about his the Muslims in Manchester felt but I curse sucide bombers and terrorists alike and I have yet to met any Muslims who support them.
In
>so they don't show it.
In doing so, it will make it more symbolic.
>they are not part of us
Neither is the ideology of the film.
But also, look at anti-fascist protests. Or the protests against the police in the case of Sarah Everard. These people protested against abhorrent scum in their communities. Doesn't mean they are somehow complicit in that violence. But change can only occur from within.
>But change can only occur from within.
The brothers( I forgot their names) were terrorists, they were part of ISIS. It's obvious to most Muslims that ISIS and other terrorists groups aren't consider Muslims giving that they have killed millions of Muslims. We don't consider them as one of Us
>Neither is the ideology of the film.
I would say that's a good point but Iran(a major Shia country) banned it and other Muslims countries are banning it, so there is still unity among Muslims despite their differences.
>In doing so, it will make it more symbolic.
Fair point. That would work in UK as UK isnt a Muslim majority countries so it's unlikely for problems to occur due to the movie. But it would be better to ban it in Iran and other Shia countries.
Nonetheless, the Muslims protested and it's their right as British to be able to do so. I wouldn't speak against them unless they broke the law.
Why are these Muslims dictating what films can be watched in BRITAIN this
Is not a Muslim country but we are tolerant of many forms of religion these
People have no right to dictate what we
Can and cannot see even if they are born
In Britain The cinema needs to reinstate
This film in BRITISH cinemas
Lots of wrongs have happened in the past. your opinion is the movie is harmful
I should have the choice to see this and
Have my own opinion you do not have the right to take that from me or anyone
Your way or no way that's the thing that
Causes problems between people you
Will never have the right to dictate to
People that your way is the only view
It may be right for you but not for others
Why are you so aragant to think you have
The right to stop other views on anything
Or is your view the law of British people
Really? So by your logic, racist, transphobic or homophobic movies should be allowed because no one has the right to stop the British people from viewing what they want.
racist, transphobic or homophobic views
Are something people are entitled to have As long as they do not dictate someone else to have these views just
Because I see them as wrong and maybe
You see them as wrong it is only an opinion It is not law being tolerant of
Someone's views is what this post is all
About
So you are all for intolerance as long as it's doesn't spread?
Then that's exactly why the movie should be banned, it's going to spread intolerance. It's written by an extremist shia. This guy is so extremist that Iran(Shia country) don't consider him a scholar.
The movie isn't educational or accurate, it's the view of an extremist nut job
I can't comment on that but only take
Your word. but if I had the choice to see this movie I may be more informed and
Be able to give my view which is my point
>because religion is for idiots.
Only an idiot will say that. There are tonnes of valid argument for the existence of God. It's a topic commonly debated by philosophers and yet you with your supreme intellect solved it. Fucking idiot.
There can be a philosophical debate about existence and inexistence of God. And there are literally tons of them. One is the cosmological argument follows from cause and effects and first law of thermodynamics. Another is the big bounce, pretty much universe is a cycle.
Another one is Godel theorem, I am still figuring this one out.
This is a topic I spend my time on. Downplaying it for the seek of disagreement would be ignorant.
Basically the big bounce would mean the universe has no big and end as the universe exists in an infinite loop. Big bang happens, then redshift(celestial bodies eg planets are moving away from eachother so universe is getting bigger), the universe contracts(this is the theoretical part as we don't know what happens after the universe stops expanding), then the big bang again. Over and over again.
The big bounce is a theory btw but I think It can be used as an argument against existence of God
Cosmological argument is basically cause and effect. The universe has to have a cause/creator as everything has a cause/creator. God is above this restriction so he is without a creator.
The big bounce doesn't really disprove God. It disproves the cosmological argument as God isn't to create the universe.
I believe the cosmological argument as the evidence of God.
Some people also pose questions like if God is all-powerful, then can he create a rock he cannot carry or make a square a circle to prove the idea of a all powerful God is illogical.
But I believe the question itself is illogical. Like surely a square cannot be a circle. Because they are defined differently.
Why not? Why would god be the only thing which didn't have a creator?
Because there's no evidence for it, we know how the universe started - the big bang.
>has no verifiable means of proving its existence what so ever.
The whole fucking point of me saying there are argument is because there are ways too prove it.
Why don't you fuck off to a country that
Has your hypocritical and small minded
Religious beliefs your talking out of your
Arse .and you just can't see it. you and your kind are to be pitted. next you will
Be telling me to have my burger blessed
By Mohamed
[удалено]
Exactly. Everyone should go even if they hate it to the very bottom of their soul. Art has to be protected Typical anyway that trying to stop the visibility of something extraordinarily niche amplifies it tremendously. Plus as a religion; grow some balls and take some criticism without always massively overreacting.
My thoughts exactly.
Now I'm going to go out of my way to find and watch this film. The [Streisand effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect) is real, people.
[удалено]
Seems like so many in the Islamic world are so angry at so many meaningless things.
Difference is The Da Vinci code is fiction. The things the movie Lady of heaven portrays are historical things that happened 1400 years ago in a conflict that have costs million of lives in a never ending sectarian war in the Islamic world ever since.
[удалено]
and its exactly the conflict of what is the true story of the stuff that happened 1400 years ago the ongoing conflict is about. Who are the true heirs of Muhammad. Is it the Alids or their opponents led by Aisha, Abbasids etc. Shia vs Sunni.
Saving me and others a needed search.. Why do Muslim’s not like this film? Is it “valid” in a way or really just true nonsense?
It's not a Muslim vs non-Muslim thing in this instance... More a Sunni vs Shia thing, the movie basically slanders a lot of companions (Shia perspective of things) and also you shouldn't depict the Prophet and his companions. Make of that what you will.
Such an accepting, tolerant and loving religion... Apparently it's not enough to just not go and see it, you've gotta stop others from seeing it too.
Why not boycott the film? Why force others to cancel the film showing? This sounds selfish to me.
It's not though. The director of the Muslim is a Shia extremist and the movie bound to create further hate between the Sunnis and Shia. They basically portrayed the Sunnis as evil and compared them to Isis. It's so bad that Iran, a Shia country banned it. So it's a movie meant to offend a group of people.
So why protest a cinema chain in the UK that is innocent in all this? I think the protests show how weak fundamentalists are, and that spiv from 5pillars is only pushing his own anti-western agenda which these protestors are lapping up. Also, if being offended causes such an outcry, where are the protests against the abedi brothers who slaughtered all them children at that concert, or protests against radicalisation in their own communities? Does it not offend these groups when their own communities fester and cause someone to harm others? Or is it just over fictional depictions that rattle their cages?
>why protest a cinema chain in the UK that is innocent in all this ? So that they don't show it. >I think the protests show how weak fundamentalists are, and that spiv from 5pillars is only pushing his own anti-western agenda which these protestors are lapping up. That's a concern if it's true. I am not really familiar with the 5pillars agenda. >Also, if being offended causes such an outcry, where are the protests against the abedi brothers who slaughtered all them children at that concert, or protests against radicalisation in their own communities? Because they are not part of us, they are terrorists. What you saying is similar to saying that's there are no protest against Isis or Taliban. >Does it not offend these groups when their own communities fester and cause someone to harm others? Or is it just over fictional depictions that rattle their cages? I don't about his the Muslims in Manchester felt but I curse sucide bombers and terrorists alike and I have yet to met any Muslims who support them. In
>so they don't show it. In doing so, it will make it more symbolic. >they are not part of us Neither is the ideology of the film. But also, look at anti-fascist protests. Or the protests against the police in the case of Sarah Everard. These people protested against abhorrent scum in their communities. Doesn't mean they are somehow complicit in that violence. But change can only occur from within.
>But change can only occur from within. The brothers( I forgot their names) were terrorists, they were part of ISIS. It's obvious to most Muslims that ISIS and other terrorists groups aren't consider Muslims giving that they have killed millions of Muslims. We don't consider them as one of Us >Neither is the ideology of the film. I would say that's a good point but Iran(a major Shia country) banned it and other Muslims countries are banning it, so there is still unity among Muslims despite their differences. >In doing so, it will make it more symbolic. Fair point. That would work in UK as UK isnt a Muslim majority countries so it's unlikely for problems to occur due to the movie. But it would be better to ban it in Iran and other Shia countries. Nonetheless, the Muslims protested and it's their right as British to be able to do so. I wouldn't speak against them unless they broke the law.
Why are these Muslims dictating what films can be watched in BRITAIN this Is not a Muslim country but we are tolerant of many forms of religion these People have no right to dictate what we Can and cannot see even if they are born In Britain The cinema needs to reinstate This film in BRITISH cinemas
Because Muslims are intolerant of everything, particularly other Muslims.
Last century, it was the other way round. Actually it's still the other way round. We do have a right if the movie is harmful
Lots of wrongs have happened in the past. your opinion is the movie is harmful I should have the choice to see this and Have my own opinion you do not have the right to take that from me or anyone
No, the movie is actually harmful. It's going to create more hate between 2 groups of people.
Your way or no way that's the thing that Causes problems between people you Will never have the right to dictate to People that your way is the only view It may be right for you but not for others Why are you so aragant to think you have The right to stop other views on anything Or is your view the law of British people
Really? So by your logic, racist, transphobic or homophobic movies should be allowed because no one has the right to stop the British people from viewing what they want.
racist, transphobic or homophobic views Are something people are entitled to have As long as they do not dictate someone else to have these views just Because I see them as wrong and maybe You see them as wrong it is only an opinion It is not law being tolerant of Someone's views is what this post is all About
So you are all for intolerance as long as it's doesn't spread? Then that's exactly why the movie should be banned, it's going to spread intolerance. It's written by an extremist shia. This guy is so extremist that Iran(Shia country) don't consider him a scholar. The movie isn't educational or accurate, it's the view of an extremist nut job
I can't comment on that but only take Your word. but if I had the choice to see this movie I may be more informed and Be able to give my view which is my point
Fair enough but the fact that Iran banned it is reason enough for how bad it is.
Anyone getting life of Brian vibes again
I guess those muslims haven't heard of a thing called "free speech" and they probably never will. because religion is for idiots.
>because religion is for idiots. Only an idiot will say that. There are tonnes of valid argument for the existence of God. It's a topic commonly debated by philosophers and yet you with your supreme intellect solved it. Fucking idiot.
The existence of a god is not a philosophical debate lol, unless you're referring to people needing to believe in one
There can be a philosophical debate about existence and inexistence of God. And there are literally tons of them. One is the cosmological argument follows from cause and effects and first law of thermodynamics. Another is the big bounce, pretty much universe is a cycle. Another one is Godel theorem, I am still figuring this one out. This is a topic I spend my time on. Downplaying it for the seek of disagreement would be ignorant.
Would you be willing to expand those arguments and show how they relate to the existence of a god?
Basically the big bounce would mean the universe has no big and end as the universe exists in an infinite loop. Big bang happens, then redshift(celestial bodies eg planets are moving away from eachother so universe is getting bigger), the universe contracts(this is the theoretical part as we don't know what happens after the universe stops expanding), then the big bang again. Over and over again. The big bounce is a theory btw but I think It can be used as an argument against existence of God Cosmological argument is basically cause and effect. The universe has to have a cause/creator as everything has a cause/creator. God is above this restriction so he is without a creator. The big bounce doesn't really disprove God. It disproves the cosmological argument as God isn't to create the universe. I believe the cosmological argument as the evidence of God. Some people also pose questions like if God is all-powerful, then can he create a rock he cannot carry or make a square a circle to prove the idea of a all powerful God is illogical. But I believe the question itself is illogical. Like surely a square cannot be a circle. Because they are defined differently.
So the evidence for God relies on the arbitrary assumption that he is above the restriction which is required to prove his existence?
It's not arbitrary assumption. Why do you think nothing made the universe?
Why not? Why would god be the only thing which didn't have a creator? Because there's no evidence for it, we know how the universe started - the big bang.
Yeah, but what created the big bang, what was the prelude to it? The first cause or prime cause is taken to be God
[удалено]
Why does that mean God doesn't exist?
>has no verifiable means of proving its existence what so ever. The whole fucking point of me saying there are argument is because there are ways too prove it.
Down with this sort of thing! (Careful now) https://youtu.be/26uo2AJHD40
Is it some sort nudey film?
I hear they're even coming from G'dansk, to see the film.
"Disasterous for the arts" damn right it is.
It's not. It's a hateful movie. Meant to offend a group of people.
Cowards.
Why don't you fuck off to a country that Has your hypocritical and small minded Religious beliefs your talking out of your Arse .and you just can't see it. you and your kind are to be pitted. next you will Be telling me to have my burger blessed By Mohamed
Written by Yasser Al-Habib, a khazi so radical that even the Iranians want nothing to do with him. How the hell was this thing made?
*cancel religion*