Posted on 09/05/2016 10:48:04 AM PDT by NRx
Director: Mel Gibson; Starring: Andrew Garfield, Teresa Palmer, Vince Vaughn, Sam Worthington, Hugo Weaving, Rachel Griffiths. Cert tbc, 131 mins.
What could have possibly attracted Mel Gibson to the story of Desmond Doss, a man whose unconventional religious beliefs made him a pariah among his peers, but who, once the system had learned to grudgingly accommodate him, worked wonders and saved souls through sheer force of conviction? Desmond was a committed Seventh Day Adventist and pacifist who served as a US Army medic at Okinawa, saving 75 lives without ever lifting a weapon – and the curiously ideal subject for what is unquestionably going to be viewed as Gibson’s comeback movie.
Hacksaw Ridge is a fantastically moving and bruising war film that hits you like a raw topside of beef in the face – a kind of primary-coloured Guernica that flourishes on a big screen with a crowd. It is Gibson’s first film as director since Apocalypto in 2006 – and, more pertinently, since a string of scandals and public disgraces toxified his career in the years that followed. Its story of an outcast finding redemption through superhuman levels of suffering is pure Gibson: you could even call it the third part of an unofficial trilogy that also takes in Apocalypto and The Passion of the Christ (2004), except you sense Gibson will return in future to this story again and again, perhaps because of a deep-seated suspicion it may also be his.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
“We recognize Miller’s role in how the SDA church came about, but he was not a founder of the SDA church.”
No, but his error was a founder of SDA in a sense and that’s what I said.
“He was just part of the mass movement...”
No. He WAS THE LEADER.
“... and interest that thousands across America, at the time, had in regards to Bible prophecy and doctrines.”
And they were all wrong and all of them were violating a common precept of scripture.
“The SDA church coalesced as a result of this interest by thousands of people.”
They made things up and borrowed from here and there. It was and is an heretical sect. It was a happanstance that they adopted Trinitarianism decades after their founding.
“I will agree to you that some of its positions were reflected by the biases of the 19th century, like not understanding Islam still being a threat, despite being a completely beaten enemy at this time and there was some anti-Catholic bias as well, because that also reflected general America at the time. No Catholic could seek a public position at the time, the American people would not have allowed it. In this regard, the SDA church was reflecting the time it was born into.”
No. First of all, Catholics held office at the time so where you’re getting this “No Catholic could seek a public position at the time” I have no idea. Yes, there was wide-spread anti-Catholicism, but, no, that does not explain the theological anti-Catholicism of the SDA. That was chosen and deliberate and cannot be explained away as the zeitgeist of the times.
“However, having said that, the substance of what the SDA church teaches, America and the Catholic church becoming persecutors of God’s people, will come to pass.”
Nope. Since America’s government is officially persecuting the Catholic Church in America what you’re claiming is logically and theologically impossible.
“It will come to pass, but it will come to pass for reasons that nobody in the 19th century could have thought possible, Islam.”
Nope.
It is an injustice to Doss to turn this thread into a religious discussion. Gibson appears to be above the Catholi - SDA split, so why can’t we? How about we just keep the discussion to the honor of this amazing hero and not pollute this thread with yet another religious discussion. There are plenty of other threats to bash each other over the head trashing each other’s religious beliefs. Plesae go there and keep the pollution out of this thread.
Miller was only the leader of the Millerite movement. The Adventist movement was much larger than this and there was no real leader, like a EGW or otherwise, to this. It was a religious tea-party (for a lack of a better term), very decentralized and being formed through people individually studying the Scripture.
Yes, America will persecute those who want to remain faithful. You can take this to the bank. I guarantee that. It may have lost its Constitutional protections, because that is what the globalists want, but it will happen.
“Miller was only the leader of the Millerite movement.”
The Millerite movement was almost entirely synonymous with the ADVENTIST movement which ultimately coalesced into the SDA and the Advent Christian Church.
“The Adventist movement was much larger than this and there was no real leader, like a EGW or otherwise, to this.”
The Adventist movement and the Millerite movement during his lifetime were almost entirely synonymous. You’re desperately straining at gnats here.
“It was a religious tea-party (for a lack of a better term), very decentralized and being formed through people individually studying the Scripture.”
No. It lacked a formal structure, but had universal publications, looked to a handful of leaders - all of whom were entirely overshadowed by Miller during his life time - and embraced a core of ideas some restorationist ones and some completely novel.
“Yes, America will persecute those who want to remain faithful. You can take this to the bank. I guarantee that.”
There’s no “will persecute”. It’s HAPPENING ALREADY to the Catholic Church with the HHS mandate.
“It may have lost its Constitutional protections, because that is what the globalists want, but it will happen.”
Already is. Wake up!
bump
It already has, but you do not believe their success in removing Constitutional protections will eventually lead to persecution of God’s people in America...
Mel Gibson with that beard of his reminds me of a young Saddam Hussein......
What a threat hijack, thanks guys!
“It already has, but you do not believe their success in removing Constitutional protections will eventually lead to persecution of God’s people in America...”
Who is “their” in “their success”? Your writing is as flawed as your thinking.
I don’t recall discussing anyone’s religion on here.
You said that the Constitution has already been largely rendered moot. If so, then there is no legal basis for protecting religious minorities. This opens the door to persecuting God’s people.
Maybe your identification of "God's people" is a bit off the mark.
“You said that the Constitution has already been largely rendered moot.”
No. You said: “It may have lost its Constitutional protections, because that is what the globalists want, but it will happen.”
I said: “Already is. Wake up!” That doesn’t mean I believe the U.S. Constitution is moot. I do believe that some of our constitutional protections are essentially lost, however.
“If so, then there is no legal basis for protecting religious minorities.”
It has NEVER been about “protecting religious minorities”. It has always been about - according to the law - protecting the religious rights of INDIVIDUALS and ORGANIZATIONS. Not minorities. Individuals and organizations (lawful assemblies with incorporation rights).
“This opens the door to persecuting God’s people.”
Especially in a country where anti-Catholicism is part of the fabric of the nation and is periodically encouraged by groups like the SDA and the writings of EG White who was a false teacher, sectarian and heretic.
I never identified SDA’s as God’s people. God’s people are whomever follows Jesus. The Great Commission tells us this.
A person’s doctrines or understandings can be quite contrary to what is taught in the Bible. That does not stop him from being covered with the Blood of Christ and be saved.
Truth is a condition of freedom, but it is not a condition of salvation. If the sacrifice of Christ is enough to cover the worst of sins, it is also enough to cover sincere, but incorrect beliefs too.
Hollywood is very strong for the Democrat Party.
They don’t do a lot of war pictures.
But here we have a film about a Soldier without a rifle.
Why, it’s almost like they made and released this movie to influence people about a Soldier without a rifle.
To protect the Democrats like Obama.
Hmmmmmm......
Seems familiar.......
Bowe Bergdahl.
He left his rifle behind.
Now you know why Hollywood likes this movie and is releasing it now.
It’s to protect Obama and the Democrats.
Everyone!
Please be on the lookout for bigdaddy45’s wit!
He’s lost half of it!
And nobody likes a halfwit.
Proud to say that I served with a young man that refused to chamber a round RVN 1969.
He would do anything he was asked,but load a weapon.
Calmly stating that he was taught,”Thou shalt not kill”, he would die first.
Not some BS from one looking for a way out, he was the real deal.
A Black Baptist from way back in the hills of South Carolina and a man of true convictions.
After a while it was decided to change to his MOS from 11b to that of cook.
Truly a man of honor.
So let’s review your logic. Mel Gibson is despised in Hollywood. Hated. In addition to his personal escapades, he made The Passion of the Christ and The Patriot. Very conservative movies. Yet according to you, he’s part of some grand Hollywood conspiracy to promote a pacifist agenda and pacifist soldiers over the ones carrying guns. Uh, yeah. Right. Good theory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.