Christian Subversion And Missionary Activities - 6

[Husky]

[quote name='G.Subramaniam' date='22 June 2010 - 07:48 AM' timestamp='1277172640' post='107116']“Agora,” [...] also features a large, cosmopolitan and polyglot cast, including actors from Britain, France, Latin America, Israel and the Arab world who are Christian, Muslim and Jewish.[/quote]

Huh, what? What do islamaniacs have to do with Hypatia's life and times? Christists, yes: they were the terrorists. And while Jewish people certainly existed at the time, how are they relevant to this case?



[In contrast, all three monotheisms (<- it's their term for themselves, so can use it; it's the Other that does not self-identify: heathens don't have a worldview that necessitates the forging of ideas like polytheism for contrastiveness, heathens' traditions/books don't boo at one-gawd-isms)

- in contrast, all 3 monotheisms have a place in that absurd Ridley Scott film "Kingdom of Heaven" - the movie about the crusaders and the islamaniacs illegally taking Jewish land that was illegally-occupied by christomaniacs. (I expected better of Scott who IIRC had directed the brilliant BladeRunner. Although, the brilliance there was not in the direction but in Sid the Visual Futurist, the composer Vangelis and Philip K Dick, who authored Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.)]



But note how there's no representation of the actual (only) people who matter here: the Hellenes. They are not allowed to represent themselves. it's christoislamaniacs and other unrelated persons playing them. (It's non-Hellenes who wrote this script, so it's not a Hellenistic viewpoint at all. In fact, matters are worse.)



The christists hired ought to play the villains only: as was their historical role. But I bet that's not the case in this film: bet some of the terrorists played the Hellenes, the very people their religion victimised. Even the director sounds decidedly christist (see final para of the NYT article).

(Max Minghella, who plays Davus "And I’d be lying if I said there was not a fair amount of religious debate on the set, which was really stimulating.”

Ja ja, sounds vastly stimoolating. (Ben ik blij dat ik niet intellectueel ingesteld ben.)

Again, how is this relevant? There's no Hellenes. Those present were all debating to the air.

What do christoislamania - or even Judaism and atheism/agnosticism - have to do with Hellenismos? Nothing. Zilch. These entitites on the set can debate all they want, but there's no representation of the legitimates here, so the 'religious debate' can be no more than some irrelevant babbling between Judaism and its unwanted unintended heresies.

And how "stimulating" can a "religious debate" be between monotheists - *especially* when it involves christoislamanics?





And later come the paras that say it all:

“There is always license,” Mr. Amenábar said when asked about his focus on Christian depredations. “But in comparison to cinema today, we tried to be very rigorous and faithful to reality.”

What a lie. (Or self-delusion. Call it what you will.)

In Europe, where “Agora” was released last year and became the box office champion of 2009 in Spain, that portrayal of Christian zealotry has provoked controversy. Hoping to head off trouble with the Vatican, the film’s Italian distributor, for example, invited Roman Catholic clergy members to an advance screening but described their reaction as “all on edge.” And fearing attacks on its Coptic Christian minority, Egypt has restricted showings of “Agora” there, according to news reports.

To worry about - and act around - catholic opinion on historical truth implies christist tendencies in the creators of the film.



And most especially this:

“Fundamentally, this is a very Christian film about the life of a martyr,” Mr. Amenábar said. “It denounces intolerance and pays homage to those voices that favor serenity and dialogue. Jesus would not have approved of what happened to Hypatia, which is why I say no good Christian should feel offended by this film.”

If that para doesn't prove that this film is just pre-emptive christian apologetics - trying to hijack the voice of the legitimates (the Hellenes) and put words in their mouths and give the christist slant to historical events - then I don't know what could further set alarm bells off in heathen heads the world over of how this movie is but more christism afoot.



Enough with the lying ("apologetics"). It wasn't "bad unchristian so-called christians" who killed hypatia and destroyed the many libraries. It was True Christianism - hence True Christians - who did it. It is the one-and-only christianism which has therefore been oft-repeated the world over.

Genociding heathens, destroying their Temples, burning their books and libraries - it's what christos=arch-terrorists DO. It's their way, their ideology.



But all this destruction is not enough for christos. Because once it's over, they insist on lying about it too: they lie about history. When they get caught and are facing exposure (such as now, when more people in the world know about Hypatia and the Lib of Alexandria, despite the 'holy' church doing its best to keep it all covered for so long), christists make an Apologetics Film about it. The world knows it's the christians that did it. So they are now playing the "Good Christians Didn't Do it (Wouldn' Have Done It) Because Jesus Wouldn't Have Done It" card. [Of course jeebus would have done it had he existed: it is *commanded* in the OT, and as the non-existent jeebus is made to say in the babble: he came to uphold the Law (i.e OT).]

And so the latest apologetics too: what A LIE. The christo Lies never end.

They are killing Hypatia all over again: maiming the accurate memory of her. This movie is just another subversion of actual history: of actual events AND voices.



I can't work out why they're recommending it at http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2010/06/n...agora.html

(Hmmm, the comment there mistakes Agora as referring to some Hindu word - the comment can't mean Aghora, since in Samskritam gh is obviously an entirely different letter/sound from g.

Plus: Agora is just 3 syllables for goodness sake, is it beyond conception that the Greeks could have such a word too? Here, Agora is referring to a very Greek term, which in this age has also gained the derived meaning of internet forums. Hence the forums at Ysee.gr are called.... Agora.)



This movie is just the christianism of the 20th/21st century. Initially, the christists were jubilant about having massacred Hypatia. Eventually they figured they better make up some 'learned' santa woman to compete with Hypatia:

http://freetruth.50webs.org/C1.htm

St Catharine of Alexandria:

"To remove Hypatia from our collective memory, the Church made up a new Saint: Catharine of Alexandria. More than 100 years before Hypatia, this "intelligent, beautiful and very conscientious young woman" (fansite) in Alexandria was to have converted pagans to Christianity and had supposedly been murdered for this. Since there's no evidence for her existence, she was stricken from the General Roman Catholic calendar. For six hundred years, she had been one of the most beloved of all the saints, and many Christians revere her still. It is but a beautiful story."

Translated from the final paragraph of the German article Zur Seligsprechung von Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu, alias Mutter Teresa. http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/15/15888/1.html

So now that the santa christist woman has been exposed as one-more convenient cover-up christofiction, and the church has to admit to the murder of Hypatia without being able to resort to their equal-equal using the non-existent Santa Catherine of Alexandria, the pious sheep have jumped to making a film on Hypatia before anyone else does it. So as to give the christian spin first ("it wasn't 'true christians' and jeebus didn't do it") and thereby imprint their own views on the world (audience) beforehand, however subtle the christianism in the views may be. After all, this is the Last Stage Of Apologetics: admit to the crime, but deny that true christians had done it ('christianism is incapable' argument).



Aren't people sick of the christist subversion (such as through apologetics=excuses=lying) already? Why support this mental subversion with money? The people who made it have laid bare their motivations. What else is there to know.

Better for heathens to spend money on heathen cinema instead. There are nations which still produce excellent, excellent *heathen* films. (Not India, of course. Indian cinema has been christoislamised but has a secular veneer in order to make the gullibles in the Hindoo target audience swallow it. A few decades ago, Hindus still made their own films: films for their own people. Now, those individus with Hindu ancestry make secular junk - a lot christoconditioned and islam-hindu bhai bhai. And the christoislamis make christoislamic/anti-Hindu movies: islamania now owns 'bollywood', may as well call it pak/puke cinema unless the audience agrees that urdu is the Hindi region's language. Christomania is going to make a bid to take over Indian cinema in southern regions. And then there's commie cinema. No doubt it's all secular coincidence again. Government. Education/History. Awards. Media. Cinema. The whole brainwashing system in place. Yes, what a coincidence.)