Comments by "Dino2996" (@Dino23968) on "WatchMojo.com"
channel.
-
48
-
25
-
24
-
17
-
Here's my opening argument(screen junkies style) starting now:
For me, you have to go for LOTR. HP is mostly just an amalgamation of the hero's journey(we've already seen that since Star Wars) and middle/high school soap opera drama. LOTR(and The Hobbit before),on the other hand, broke new grounds. And it did so by not only forever changing and revolutionizing the style of fantasy by giving a whole new respect to the genre, but also expanding and inspiring so many generations and decades of many fantasy authors to come later based on how the books transcend time and space with it's multiple layers of richness(the first HP book only came out in '97). But LOTR also stands out as a reflection of us,based on the multiple different nations and races of beings such as Elves,Dwarves,Hobbits,Goblins,and Orcs,exploring their cultures,learning their languages,understanding their religions,and even dealing with tough situations that probably can't be fixed(HP cheats with time travel and Harry coming back after being killed by Voldemort). The world of HP may be this whole utopia that we wish we could be,but the world of LOTR is actually what we really are right now. And that's what made it so universal and proven to be a fantasy ahead of it's time. The whole sub-genre of Epic Fantasy would never have been born without the opening sentence:"In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit."
("Phew." That's my opening argument for LOTR. Now waiting for someone's opening argument for HP starting now.)
17
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
χουπο φης "SUCKS BAD?"
1.The movies are one of the most highly acclaimed cinematic masterpieces of all time. Even on Rotten Tomatoes,The Fellowship of the Ring has a 91%,The Two Towers has a 95%,and The Return of the King has 93%.
2.The trilogy has a budget of $281,000,000 and a total of $2,917,506,956 at the box office. It has become and still remains the highest-grossing film trilogy worldwide of all time, higher even than other film franchises such as the classic Star Wars trilogy and The Godfather trilogy.
3.The trilogy even received wide praise for its innovative special and visual effects. It's like the classic Star Wars trilogy where you don't see crappy makeup and crappy practical effects. These are really well done and even balances between CGI and practical effects(Harry Potter kind of overuses too much CGI).
4.The trilogy won 17 out of 30 total Oscar nominations. The final film in the series, The Return of the King, won all 11 of its Academy Award nominations including Best Picture, which also tied it with Ben-Hur and Titanic for most Academy Awards received for a film(Harry Potter unfortunately won no Oscars).
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
GAleto
How many Middle-Earth books did Tolkien write?
Works During His Lifetime:
* • 1937 The Hobbit
* The titular Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins, joins a company of dwarves and the wizard Gandalf in a quest to reclaim an old Dwarvish kingdom from the dragon Smaug.
* The Lord of the Rings
* 1954 The Fellowship of the Ring, part 1 of The Lord of the Rings
* Bilbo's cousin and heir Frodo Baggins sets out on a quest to rid Middle-earth of the One Ring, joined by the Fellowship of the Ring.
* 1954 The Two Towers, part 2 of The Lord of the Rings
* The Fellowship is split apart: while Frodo and his friend Sam continue their quest, Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas fight to rescue the hobbits Peregrin Took (Pippin) and Meriadoc Brandybuck (Merry) from Orcs and to save the Kingdom of Rohan.
* 1955 The Return of the King, part 3 of The Lord of the Rings
* Frodo and Sam reach Mordor, while Aragorn arrives in Gondor to reclaim his heritage.
* 1962 The Adventures of Tom Bombadil and Other Verses from the Red Book
* An assortment of poems, loosely related to The Lord of the Rings
* 1967 The Road Goes Ever On
* A song cycle with the composer Donald Swann (long out of print but reprinted in 2002)
Posthumous Works:
* 1977 The Silmarillion
* The history of the Elder Days, before The Lord of the Rings, including the Downfall of Númenor
* 1980 Unfinished Tales of Númenor and Middle-earth
* Stories and essays related to The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings, but many were never completed.
* 1981 The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien
* A compilation of various letters written by Tolkien throughout his lifetime. Most pertain to Middle-earth.
* 1990 Bilbo's Last Song
* Poem (published on poster in 1974, not released as book until 1990)
* The History of Middle-earth series:
* 1983 The Book of Lost Tales 1
* 1984 The Book of Lost Tales 2
* The earliest versions of the mythology, from start to finish
* 1985 The Lays of Beleriand
* Two long poems (the Lay of Leithian about Beren and Lúthien, and the Túrin saga)
* 1986 The Shaping of Middle-earth
* Start of rewriting the mythology from the beginning
* 1987 The Lost Road and Other Writings
* Introduction of Númenor to the mythology and continuation of rewriting
* 1988 The Return of the Shadow (The History of The Lord of the Rings volume 1)
* 1989 The Treason of Isengard (The History of The Lord of the Rings v.2)
* 1990 The War of the Ring (The History of The Lord of the Rings v.3)
* 1992 Sauron Defeated (The History of The Lord of the Rings v.4)
* The development of The Lord of the Rings. Sauron Defeated also includes another version of the Númenor story.
* 1993 Morgoth's Ring (The Later Silmarillion, part one)
* 1994 The War of the Jewels (The Later Silmarillion, part two)
* Post-Lord of the Rings efforts to revise the mythology for publication. Includes the controversial 'Myths Transformed' section, which documents how Tolkien's thoughts changed radically in the last years of his life.
* 1996 The Peoples of Middle-earth
* Source material for the appendices in The Lord of the Rings and some more late writings related to The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings.
* 2007 The Children of Húrin
* Retelling of one of the three "Great Tales" of The Silmarillion (the other two being the story of Beren and Lúthien and the story of the Fall of Gondolin) as one single work, meant to increase readability and give more details compared to the briefer retelling in The Silmarillion.
* The History of The Hobbit (in two volumes, edited by John Rateliff)
* 2007 Mr. Baggins
* 2007 Return to Bag-End
* 2017 Beren and Lúthien
* The book is illustrated by Alan Lee and edited by Christopher Tolkien, and it features different versions of the story, showing the development of the tale over time.
* 2018 The Fall of Gondolin
How many Wizarding World books did Rowling write?
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
When it comes to the main characters, Frodo was born humble. He had no ancient prophesy that he would become the Ringbearer. He was always a simple hobbit. He enjoyed friendship and frivolity and good, abundant food and drink. Greatness was thrust upon him in way it never was upon Harry. Frodo was just a plain hobbit. He had no destiny, no magical powers. He was not descended from a long line of ancient rulers, like Aragorn. He was not the greatest living wizard, like Gandalf. He was not a stalwart warrior like Gimli or Legolas or Faramir. His power came purely from his bravery and determination. Like Harry, there were times when he was protected and assisted. But the bulk of his journey, his trial, was set squarely on his shoulders. He was the one (alongside Samwise) that walked to the literal end of Middle Earth and destroyed the greatest evil the world has ever known. Yes, only Harry could ultimately kill Voldemort, but he had an army of friends and allies who fought alongside him and cleared his way. Frodo did it only with a portly gardener, a glowing blue sword, some crunchy snacks and an evil little creature. Harry grew into what he was destined to become. Frodo grew beyond his limitations, surpassed what was thought possible. Now that is a more natural form of heroism. Harry, on the other hand, is really just a Mary Sue and return to the now cliché Doc Savage-type protagonist. The "every man." The "perfect man." The "ideal hero we wish for." The "guy who solves everything with pure luck and is just always right on top." And before anyone says this, sure, I know that's really just the author's personal preference, but the character could have been done a bit more believable.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Sagar 1)Voldemort is basically just some Hitler wannabe while Sauron is technically the Antichrist of Middle-Earth. He's also more mysterious than Voldemort(it's the mystery of a villain that will usually increase the fear of that villain).
2)"Boring story?" HP is just an amalgamation of a middle/high school soap opera drama mixed with the whole "hero's journey" story arc(we've already seen that since Star Wars). LOTR,on the other hand, is pure fantasy adventure(you don't get a real adventure in HP until the seventh installment). And you obviously can't put adventure behind a school soap opera drama(anybody could easily get bored of that genre and want a real adventure).
3)Middle-Earth has many constructed languages(Quenya,Telerin,Sindarin,Adûnaic,Westron,Rohirric,Khuzdûl,Entish,Valarin,and Black Speech). There even exists sites and books on how to speak those languages. In HP,there's only Parseltongue(snake language). That's pretty much it.
4)HP comes off as weirdly racist.First example,"don't speak snake language because that's baaad and eviiil." That's like saying, "don't speak Russian just because they're all communists." Second example,poor house-elves as slaves. Even good wizards are implied to use them as slaves. How is this not terrible? Third example,a statue of muggles being crushed by a Ministry of Magic monument. Is there anything else to say about this one? LOTR is lucky to not have a whole lot of racism.
5)The One Ring doesn't just make its wearer invisible,but it can also corrupt and destroy anyone who has it for too long. Look at what happened to Sméagol. Also, Sauron was going to create an apocalypse with the ring.
6)Middle-earth not only transcends space and time,but also stands out as a reflection of US,based on the multiple nations and races(Elves,Dwarves,Hobbits,Orcs,Goblins,etc) that speak their own languages,are entitled to their own cultures, and even have those religions. Even in the Hobbit movie trilogy,the rivalry between Elves and Dwarves is like the Cold War in a way because,again,it's like a real-life reflection of us. There's not a whole lot of reflections of us in HP,because in HP, it's mostly just stereotypical character archetypes:The coming-of-age hero(Harry),the wimpy BF(Ron),the wise old man(Dumblerdore),etc.
7)HP may have a lot of tragic character deaths,but it unfortunately also takes the easy way out sometimes(like using time travel to save Buckbeak from getting chopped in half and Harry coming back after Voldemort killed him). Even if the series continued, it would take almost no stakes at all, while in LOTR, you have to face what's happening and then move forward. There's even this from The Fellowship Of The Ring:
Frodo:I wish the ring had never come to me.I wish none of this had happened.
Gandalf:So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.
The world of HP may be this whole "whimsical","joyous", and "dreamy" utopia that we wish we could be,but the world of LOTR is actually what we really are right now.
Any comments to each one?
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Why it comes to tying magic into the lore, definitely LOTR. Sure, HP had good magic tied to the lore, but JRR Tolkien wrote so many endless pages about how his world was built, how gods became demigods, and how races of elves, dwarves, and humans came to be. All the things are so well explained, the magic system is so well understood, and of course it’s foundation in the creation of the world. This is something that unfortunately doesn’t come from many fantasy authors of today, not even JK Rowling. They may build a magic system, but they barely tell us how this all came to be. I know that there are some people out there like “Who cares? Nobody wants to know how this world came to be. I just want a story and not stuff that is boring to us?” Are you kidding? Of course there’s a lot of us who wants to know the history of that world and tying the magic to history and Tolkien did that in such an outstanding way once you give it a chance. Which leads to the problem here:Potter fans take one look at the LOTR or Middle-Earth books and be like “UGH, I can sooooo tell that this is totally gonna be utterly aweful and boring with too much fat written in the pages.” First of all, this is called open world building. Second, of all the books keep the juxtaposition of world building and storytelling in perfect balance. Third of all, the books have a lot written in the pages because this is a fully mature fantasy for real adult audience instead of the kind that are stuck on the juvenile too-trimmed-down-for-easy peezyness children’s fantasy that is HP.
Any comments?
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
χουπο φης BUT you know how they say HP was easily adaptable while LOTR was hard to adapt? There's a reason behind that,based on the kind of sub-genres they are. HP was too easy to adapt on the big screen because it was classified as a Low-Class Children's Fantasy. Even Disney easily adapted classic fairytales that were in that category. The same thing with the Chronicles Of Narnia(both the BBC and Disney version). LOTR,on the other hand, was hard to adapt at first because it was classified as a High-Class Epic Fantasy. By God, a High-Class Epic Fantasy; those were considered and expected to be both critical and box office BOMBS in the past(Mostly the ones back in the 1980s such as The Beastmaster,The Dark Crystal,Labyrith,Legion,etc) . But all three films were doing something that the fantasy film's in the past didn't do: THINK.They thought about character, they thought about story, they thought about world-building, they thought about what wasn't being done in theatres anymore, and they made those elements the stars again as opposed to the effects. And with all of that together, the movie trilogy won a total of 17 OSCARS(with The Return Of The King winning for Best Picture)! What a great accomplishment!
The Harry Potter films didn't win any Oscars because they were made by different directors, while The Lord Of The Rings were all made by one man alone, Peter Jackson, who not only re-read the books but also re-STUDIED the books.
6
-
χουπο φης Highest-grossing franchises and film series
(The films in each franchise can be viewed by selecting "show".)
Rank
Series
Total worldwide gross
No. of films
Average of films
Highest-grossing film
1
Marvel Cinematic Universe
$17,527,905,485
20
$876,395,274
Avengers: Infinity War ($2,046,669,485)
Phase Three
$8,444,969,792
8
$1,055,621,224
Avengers: Infinity War ($2,046,669,485)
1
Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
$2,046,669,485
2
Black Panther (2018)
$1,346,913,161
3
Captain America: Civil War (2016)
$1,153,304,495
4
Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)
$880,166,924
5
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017)
$863,756,051
6
Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
$853,977,126
7
Doctor Strange (2016)
$677,718,395
8
Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018)
$622,464,155
Phase Two
$5,271,691,209
6
$878,615,202
Avengers: Age of Ultron ($1,405,403,694)
1
Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)
$1,405,403,694
2
Iron Man 3 (2013)
$1,214,811,252
3
Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)
$773,328,629
4
Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)
$714,264,267
5
Thor: The Dark World (2013)
$644,571,402
6
Ant-Man (2015)
$519,311,965
Phase One
$3,811,244,484
6
$635,207,414
The Avengers ($1,518,812,988)
1
The Avengers (2012)
$1,518,812,988
2
Iron Man 2 (2010)
$623,933,331
3
Iron Man (2008)
$585,174,222
4
Thor (2011)
$449,326,618
5
Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)
$370,569,774
6
The Incredible Hulk (2008)
$263,427,551
2
Star Wars
$9,241,637,334
11
$840,148,849
The Force Awakens ($2,068,223,624)
Episodes
$7,724,434,474
8
$965,554,309
The Force Awakens ($2,068,223,624)
Sequel trilogy
$3,400,763,513
2
$1,700,381,757
The Force Awakens ($2,068,223,624)
1
VII – The Force Awakens (2015)
$2,068,223,624
2
VIII – The Last Jedi (2017)
$1,332,539,889
Prequel trilogy
$2,525,197,773
3
$841,732,591
The Phantom Menace ($1,027,044,677)
1
I – The Phantom Menace (1999)
$1,027,044,677
2
III – Revenge of the Sith (2005)
$848,754,768
3
II – Attack of the Clones (2002)
$649,398,328
Original trilogy
$1,798,473,188
3
$599,491,063
A New Hope ($775,398,007)
1
IV – A New Hope (1977)
$775,398,007
2
V – The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
$547,969,004
3
VI – Return of the Jedi (1983)
$475,106,177
Anthology films
$1,448,920,016
2
$724,460,008
Rogue One ($1,056,057,273)
1
Rogue One (2016)
$1,056,057,273
2
Solo (2018)
$392,862,743
The Clone Wars (2008)
$68,282,844
3
Wizarding World
$8,539,253,704
9
$948,805,967
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 ($1,341,511,219)
Harry Potter series
$7,725,216,129
8
$965,652,016
Deathly Hallows – Part 2 ($1,341,511,219)
1
Deathly Hallows – Part 2 (2011)
$1,341,511,219
2
Philosopher's Stone (2001)
$974,755,371
3
Deathly Hallows – Part 1 (2010)
$960,283,305
4
Order of the Phoenix (2007)
$939,885,929
5
Half-Blood Prince (2009)
$934,416,487
6
Goblet of Fire (2005)
$896,911,078
7
Chamber of Secrets (2002)
$878,979,634
8
Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
$796,688,549
9
IMAX Marathon (2016)
$1,784,557
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)
6
-
χουπο φης Yeah, he sacrificed himself, but still came back from the dead. In the end of the final LOTR installment, The Return Of The King, Frodo had been badly hurt in the War of the Ring, and perhaps even paid a cost higher than any other survivor. Frodo had been stabbed with a magical Morgul blade by the Witch King of Angmar, the leader of the Nazguls. Not only had this very nearly killed him, but it left physical and psychic wounds which never entirely healed. He had also been poisoned by the giant, malevolent spider, Shelob. But the burden of carrying the One Ring all the way to Mordor and to the fires of Mount Doom damaged him even more profoundly. No mortal was ever intended to carry such a weight. The constant struggle between his own good intentions and the sweet secret whisperings of the Ring must have been indescribably awful. When the war ended, Frodo was anxious to return to the thing he had always loved best, the hope of which had sustained him through the worst of his travails—the Shire. We can be certain that he hoped he would continue to heal there, and would someday resume an active life. But in this, at least, he was wrong. His pain and his alienation never ceased. He had already healed as much as it was possible to do so, at least in the mortal world. Any further healing would have to be at the hands of the Valar, the angelic supreme gods of the West. And so Frodo ultimately sailed with Cirdan, Galadriel, Elrond, Gandalf, and the other maimed Ring Bearer, Bilbo, to the Undying Lands so that Frodo could heal and die in peace in Valinor, the Middle-Earth version of Heaven. Not that is a more powerful portrayal of a main hero's big sacrifice of himself to save the whole world he was in.
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Javier Fernandez The story of Frodo is different in fundemental ways. Frodo was born humble. He had no ancient prophesy that he would become the Ringbearer. He was always a simple hobbit. He enjoyed friendship and frivolity and good, abundant food and drink. Greatness was thrust upon him in way it never was upon Harry. Yes, both had an seemingly impossible task ahead, but Harry always had the power (or the curse) to protect himself from Voldemort. Frodo was just a plain hobbit. He had no destiny, no magical powers. He was not descended from a long line of ancient rulers, like Aragorn. He was not the greatest living wizard, like Gandolf. He was not a stalwart warrior like Gimli or Legolas or Faramir. His power came purely from his bravery and determination. LIke Harry, there were times when he was protected and assisted. But the bulk of his journey, his trial, was set squarely on his shoulders. He was the one (alongside Samwise) that walked to the literal end of Middle Earth and destroyed the greatest evil the world has ever known. Yes, only Harry could ultimately kill Voldemort, but he had an army of friends and allies who fought alongside him and cleared his way. Frodo did it only with a portly gardener, a glowing blue sword, some crunchy snacks and an evil little creature. Harry grew into what he was destined to become. Frodo grew beyond his limitations, surpassed what was thought possible. Now that is the greater heroism.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
When it comes to the main characters, Frodo was born humble. He had no ancient prophesy that he would become the Ringbearer. He was always a simple hobbit. He enjoyed friendship and frivolity and good, abundant food and drink. Greatness was thrust upon him in way it never was upon Harry. Frodo was just a plain hobbit. He had no destiny, no magical powers. He was not descended from a long line of ancient rulers, like Aragorn. He was not the greatest living wizard, like Gandalf. He was not a stalwart warrior like Gimli or Legolas or Faramir. His power came purely from his bravery and determination. Like Harry, there were times when he was protected and assisted. But the bulk of his journey, his trial, was set squarely on his shoulders. He was the one (alongside Samwise) that walked to the literal end of Middle Earth and destroyed the greatest evil the world has ever known. Yes, only Harry could ultimately kill Voldemort, but he had an army of friends and allies who fought alongside him and cleared his way. Frodo did it only with a portly gardener, a glowing blue sword, some crunchy snacks and an evil little creature. Harry grew into what he was destined to become. Frodo grew beyond his limitations, surpassed what was thought possible. Now that is a more natural form of heroism. Harry, on the other hand, is really just a Mary Sue and return to the now cliché Doc Savage-type protagonist. The "every man." The "perfect man." The "ideal hero we wish for." The "guy who solves everything with pure luck and is just always right on top." And before anyone says this, sure, I know that's really just the author's personal preference, but the character could have been done a bit more believable.
4
-
4
-
When it comes to tying magic into the lore, definitely LOTR. Sure, HP had good magic tied to the lore, but JRR Tolkien wrote so many endless pages about how his world was built, how gods became demigods, and how races of elves, dwarves, and humans came to be. All the things are so well explained, the magic system is so well understood, and of course it’s foundation in the creation of the world. This is something that unfortunately doesn’t come from many fantasy authors of today, not even JK Rowling. They may build a magic system, but they barely tell us how this all came to be. I know that there are some people out there like “Who cares? Nobody wants to know how this world came to be. I just want a story and not stuff that is boring to us?” Are you kidding? Of course there’s a lot of us who wants to know the history of that world and tying the magic to history and Tolkien did that in such an outstanding way once you give it a chance. Which leads to the problem here:Potter fans take one look at the LOTR or Middle-Earth books and be like “UGH, I can sooooo tell that this is totally gonna be utterly aweful and boring with too much fat written in the pages.” First of all, this is called open world building. Second, of all the books keep the juxtaposition of world building and storytelling in perfect balance. Third of all, the books have a lot written in the pages because this is a fully mature fantasy for real adult audience instead of the kind that are stuck on the juvenile too-trimmed-down-for-easy peezyness children’s fantasy that is HP.
Any comments?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Noise Marine Actually...
Harry Potter was targetted at children so they are very easy to follow (They are Low-Class Children's Fantasy). What I mean is that the language is not that hard to understand, but the pacing gets too fast sometimes. Sure, the books get thicker with time and the story gets darker with each book but it is still very fast paced. The main reason is that Rowling wanted to tell a story and she told it without getting "distracted". She did not go into the depth about things even though don’t matter much. That makes her good at storytelling but poor at world-building. Her world has the depth of a puddle. Even though the books are mesmerizing, there are some big problems with HP. The world-building is kind of poor in a way and there are many plotholes such as The Marauder’s Map, the time-turner etc. The reason is that Rowling wrote more and more books as they became popular. She did not expect this kind of response from people. She did not have a clear vision if you do look back at it.
The Lord of the Rings is High-Class Epic Fantasy. It is a better book (It is a single book divided into three parts). And that mainly comes from the way the books transcend time and space.Even though the languages can be tough to learn, they're still very creative.Tolkien was clearly doing the right thing which was taking a lot of time in World Building. It results in a writing that has a more believable style.Also, it features a lot of singing and dancing. But that's one of the reasons why people love it. His world has so many layers of richness unlike HP. The amount of detail is just astonishing. He even wrote several books about the history of Middle Earth; that is just crazy. He spent his whole life on this idea of Middle Earth and that speaks volumes about him and his writing. LotR contributed more to the literature. It even has more relatable characters. Plus, it has multiple races that are almost like a reflection of US,based on their divided nations,languages,cultures,and even religions. It influenced almost every single fantasy writer out there. Without The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter would not exist. Period.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Dana3605 Harry Potter is for children and the grown up fans either don't want to admit it or had just forgotten that they were children when they first got into a series that has been directly aimed at children all along:
-Dobby is clearly a cutesy cartoon character.
-The spell names have childish gibberish(Even "swish and flick" is kind of childish).
-When you looks at the characters' names(Longbottom, Flitwick, Dumblerdore, Wormtail, Buckbeak, Slughorn, Padfoot, Lestrange,etc), I mean, come on, those are clearly names you get from a Disney-ish children's flick.
-The way the books describe a character's actions, description, and dialogue is clearly on a children's book level There's even a talking hat with facial expressions and moving and talking paintings in the castle that act comical.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Hassan Abou El Ezz What I’m saying is that Harry Potter is for children(like Sesame Street) and the grown up fans either don't want to admit it or had just forgotten that they were children when they first got into a series that has been directly aimed at children all along:
-Dobby is clearly a cutesy cartoon character.
-The spell names have childish gibberish(Even "swish and flick" is kind of childish).
-When you look at the characters' names(Longbottom, Flitwick, Dumblerdore, Wormtail, Buckbeak, Slughorn, Padfoot, Lestrange,etc), I mean, come on, those are clearly names you get from a Disney-ish children's flick.
-The way the books describe a character's actions, description, and dialogue is clearly on a children's book level. There's even a talking hat with facial expressions and moving and talking paintings in the castle that act comical.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Cute as a button Every single one of you
“Boring with too many details”?
The majority of LOTR:An actual exploration into the scope and mythology of Middle-Earth. The books also keep the storyline and extended world-building perfectly intact at the same time which is why it so unique since LOTR was the first of its kind.
The majority of HP:Being stuck in a school most of the time with very few places to explore outside. Plus, whatever HP does good at storytelling also lacks at world building, unfortunately. And this is due to the fact that Rowling was too busy rushing the books due to their growing popularity at the time. HP wasn’t even an “original masterpiece” as everyone claimed it to be. It’s basically the skeletal structure of The Worst Witch mashed up with LOTR and Star Wars(Harry is Luke Skywalker, Hermione is Leia Organa, Ron is Han Solo, Hagrid is Obi Wan Kenobi, Dumbledore is Yoda, Fred and George are C3PO and R2D2, Death Eaters are Stormtroopers, Wormtail is Grand Moff Tarkin, and Voldemort is Darth Vader).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Middle-Earth is a more connecting fantasy world by not just the histories,and multiple different races,languages,and religions,but also for its darker, more realistic, and more relatable tragedies,struggles, and real world-related circumstances. Even Gandalf said,"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us." But HP, unfortunately ignores that sometimes by taking the easy way out, with using time travel to fix everything in the third installment, and even Harry coming back from the dead after Voldemort killed him. In other words, the world of LOTR is partly a reflection of the real world that we're actually living in, not a "joyous" and "dreamy" utopia that we WISH we were in(Wizarding World).
Any responses?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'd also like to add that the new suit is more colorful compared to the old one which had too much darker colors.Plus, the eyepieces(new ones)are more shaped like how they were in the comics(the old eyepieces where too triangular) and they made the webbing on the suit look like it's made out of the same thing as the suit itself(the old one had too much "dimension";seriously,what's up with this scale-like pattern thing?). As for the web-shooters,mechanical wins over organic because 1)it's an important element of Peter's genius intellect 2)the artificial webbing can be used for many techniques such as web lines,massive webs,strong web shields,melting liquid for putting out fire,and so on(ortania webs only did shooting straight webs;Raimi must have been on drugs when writing the script) 3)"the best thing about the mechanical web shooters is that there are times that he would run out of webs,and what's he gonna do? As a writer,if you don't get a hero into trouble,then it wouldn't cause excitement."---Stan Lee (As you read what Stan said,the old Spidey was way too lucky which is way too clice for superheroes this decade.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
χουπο φης Harry Potter kind of ripped off Star Wars. For example, who's our main character here? It's a young orphan boy(Luke Skywalker/Harry) who, for his own safety, has been sent to live with his aunt and uncle(Owen and Beru Lars/Vernon and Petunia Dursley), until a mysterious bearded stranger(Obi-Wan Kenobi/Hagrid), who's actually the one to deliver him to his aunt and uncle when he was a baby, comes into his life and starts to teach him about this ancient kind of magic(the Force/Wizardry). Granted, he's gonna learn a lot more about this magic from an older and wiser teacher(Yoda/Dumbledore). Regardless, his uncle is against this magic stuff and doesn't tell him what really happened to his parents. But against his uncle's wishes, he leaves home for the first time, makes new friends, and meets a pretty and intelligent young girl(Leia Organa/Hermione). And although there will be a non-sexual tension between the two of them, he will only love her like a sister while she's struggling with the feelings she has with his best friend who's the scruffy comic relief(Han Solo/Ron). And then he learns about the existence and connection he has of this bad guy(Darth Vader/Voldemort)who is said to have killed his parentage with his sorcerer ways(the Dark Side/Avada Kedavra) after changing his name to Lord-something. But it turns out that our hero is naturally good at flying(X-Wing/broomstick) and locating incredibly small targets(Womp Rats/Golden Snitch).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MFool64 Envy is said to be the motivation behind Cain murdering his brother, Abel, as Cain envied Abel because God favored Abel's sacrifice over Cain's. ... Envy is, therefore, a sin deeply ingrained in human nature.
Gluttony means over-indulgence and over-consumption of food, drink, or wealth items, particularly as status symbols. It is considered a sin if the excessive desire for food causes it to be withheld from the needy.
Sloth can indicate spiritual laziness. We often think of a “couch potato” as being slothful. Sloth is a sin against God's love in that it goes so far as to refuse the joy that comes from God and to be repelled by divine goodness. It is a loss of hope in ever achieving what God wants for us: our eternal happiness.
Lust can at times run off the rails and create problems in our lives. Lacking strong sexual attraction and the desire to carry it out throughout the time we are fertile would mean no mating and little human reproduction, which would be bad for the continuation of our species.
Pride is a negative force in human existence—the opposite of humility and a source of social friction. It's even been called the deadliest sin. Pride makes us feel good, and it's an indication to ourselves that we are behaving in a way congruent with the values of our society. Even some of the worst and most evil actions in human history have been committed in the sin of Pride.
Wrath often reveals itself in the wish to seek vengeance. In its purest form, wrath presents with injury, violence, and hate that may provoke feuds that can go on for centuries. Wrath may persist long after the person who did another a grievous wrong is dead.
2
-
2
-
@MFool64 “Thou shalt not kill” is from the old King James Bible. Modern translations (ESV, NASB, NCV, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV) have it as “You shall not murder.” The word in Hebrew for “kill” here in Exodus 20:13 is תִּרְצָח (ratsach). It is translated into the English many different ways, depending on the context: “slayer 16, murderer 14, kill 5, murder 3, slain 3, manslayer 2, killing 1, slayer + 310 1, slayeth 1, death 1.” 1
Murder is the unlawful taking of life. Killing is the lawful taking of life. God has said, “You shall not murder,” not “You shall not kill.” After all, God says killing in self-defense is justifiable. Exodus 22:2, “If the thief is caught while breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account.” If the mere killing of any kind was the issue, then why would God saying killing in self-defense is permissible? He wouldn’t. This is another reason that modern translations say, “You shall not murder.”
Also, consider that the New Testament quotes Exodus 20:13 in Rom. 13:9 as “You shall not murder.” The word in Greek for murder here is φονεύω, (phoneuo). Matt. 10:28 says, ““And do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” The word of kill here is apoktinumi. Let’s compare.
Rom. 13:9, “murder” is φονεύω (phoneuō), commit murder, kill (Mt 5:21; 19:18; 23:31, 35; Mk 10:19; Lk 18:20; Ro 13:9; Jas 2:11; 4:2; 5:6) 2
Matt. 10:28, “kill” is ἀποκτίννυμι (apoktinumi), to kill, slay 3
As you can see, different words are used for “murder” and “kill.” The Greek is more specific, and since the Greek New Testament quotes the Hebrew Old Testament, we can see that Exodus 20:13 is best translated as “You shall not murder.”
One final comment: since all people have sinned against God (Rom. 3:23) all people are under the judgment of God. The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23), so when God executes someone it is not murder, it is killing because it is a lawful taking of life. Remember, all people have sinned. Sin is the breaking of God’s law. Therefore, God’s execution is lawful.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Mertens du Plooy Harry Potter is for children and the grown up fans either don't want to admit it or had just forgotten that they were children when they first got into a series that has been directly aimed at children all along:
-Dobby is clearly a cutesy cartoon character.
-The spell names have childish gibberish(Even "swish and flick" is kind of childish).
-When you looks at the characters' names(Longbottom, Flitwick, Dumblerdore, Wormtail, Buckbeak, Slughorn, Padfoot, Lestrange,etc), I mean, come on, those are clearly names you get from a Disney-ish children's flick.
-The way the books describe a character's actions, description, and dialogue is clearly on a children's book level There's even a talking hat with facial expressions and moving and talking paintings in the castle that act comical.
Any comments?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here's my opening argument(screen junkies style) starting now:
For me, you have to go for LOTR. HP is mostly just an amalgamation of the hero's journey(we've already seen that since Star Wars) and middle/high school soap opera drama. LOTR(and The Hobbit before),on the other hand, broke new grounds. And it did so by not only forever changing and revolutionizing the style of fantasy by giving a whole new respect to the genre, but also expanding and inspiring so many generations and decades of many fantasy authors to come later based on how the books transcend time and space with it's multiple layers of richness(the first HP book only came out in '97). But LOTR also stands out as a reflection of us,based on the multiple different nations and races of beings such as Elves,Dwarves,Hobbits,Goblins,and Orcs,exploring their cultures,learning their languages,understanding their religions,and even dealing with tough situations that probably can't be fixed(HP cheats with time travel and Harry coming back after being killed by Voldemort). The world of HP may be this whole utopia that we wish we could be,but the world of LOTR is actually what we really are right now. And that's what made it so universal and proven to be a fantasy ahead of it's time. The whole sub-genre of Epic Fantasy would never have been born without the opening sentence:"In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit."
("Phew." That's my opening argument for LOTR. Now waiting for someone's opening argument for HP starting now.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cute as a button Every single one of you When it comes to the fantasy world and world building, then definitely Middle-Earth. Tolkien devoted almost his entire life to 30 years of constructing this world that was more than just a world. It was an entirely whole new mythology influenced by both Old English and Scandinavian folklore. It had events such as The War Of The Jewels, The War Of Wrath, The Battle Of Unnumbered Tears, The Battle Of Helm’s Deep, and The War Of The Ring which were all reflected on Tolkien’s experience in the battle of the Somme during WW1. He even created new fantasy creatures of his own and well as old ones. And there are the non-human races of Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, and so on which somehow stand as a reflection of us, different nations of the world, based on their different cultures, their different religious beliefs as implied, and above all, the languages. Tolkien created 15 different mythical languages that are clearly detailed in grammar goes that explain how to speak in them. There’s also The Silmarillion, which is literally the holy bible of Middle Earth, which extends 30,000 years of backstory. Not to mention that each depth is plotted with so many countless layers of richness.
What did Rowling create?
1
-
1
-
Cute as a button Every single one of you
When it comes to the category of Magic and Religious themes and parallels(mostly Christianity), since religion and mythology share a lot in common, LOTR wins because it is a world where magic is more of a mystery. There’s even an existence of magics that can unmake the world, alter reality, and destroy souls utterly. So we know that magic in Middle Earth is dangerous if used wrongly but it also has a good side such as Gandalf coming back as a more powerful Maia wizard, and that good side of magic comes from the supreme God of Middle Earth, Eru Ilúvatar. So, it sort of creates a spiritual awakening within the reader, and also reminds us Christians that the only true magic comes from God himself.
HP may have good magic but there’s a downside. The fact that HP magic has multiple invincibilities, as if this is man made magic, and what’s probably the most controversial one being Harry using three object to be “master of death,” this is clearly sacrilegious magic, or magic that demeans and is against the nature of God.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When it comes to tying magic into the lore, definitely LOTR. Sure, HP had good magic tied to the lore, but JRR Tolkien wrote so many endless pages about how his world was built, how gods became demigods, and how races of elves, dwarves, and humans came to be. All the things are so well explained, the magic system is so well understood, and of course it’s foundation in the creation of the world. This is something that unfortunately doesn’t come from many fantasy authors of today, not even JK Rowling. They may build a magic system, but they barely tell us how this all came to be. I know that there are some people out there like “Who cares? Nobody wants to know how this world came to be. I just want a story and not stuff that is boring to us?” Are you kidding? Of course there’s a lot of us who wants to know the history of that world and tying the magic to history and Tolkien did that in such an outstanding way once you give it a chance. Which leads to the problem here:Potter fans take one look at the LOTR or Middle-Earth books and be like “UGH, I can sooooo tell that this is totally gonna be utterly aweful and boring with too much fat written in the pages.” First of all, this is called open world building. Second, of all the books keep the juxtaposition of world building and storytelling in perfect balance. Third of all, the books have a lot written in the pages because this is a fully mature fantasy for real adult audience instead of the kind that are stuck on the juvenile too-trimmed-down-for-easy peezyness children’s fantasy that is HP.
Any comments?
1
-
1
-
1
-
Asher Ekstein I was looking on this article of possibilities of a proper adaptation of Eragon(along with the sequels in The Inheritance Cycle) by Christopher Paolini, and I thought of this:How about if the author gives the rights to the BBC or any British studio? Think about it:Since JK Rowling, an author of the UK, sold the Harry Potter film rights to Warner Bros, a film studio of the US, then how about Christopher Paolini, an American author, giving the Inheritance Cycle film adaptation rights to a British studio? After all, there are some American studios(if not all) that unfortunately have been known for either screwing up important elements of fantasy books or the entire adaptation itself, while the British have supposedly been excellent at fantasy flicks/adaptations. Also, a lot of these franchises that have an epic mythology(Middle-Earth for example) that are inspired by Irish,Scottish,English, and Celtic folklore, as well as Scandinavian/Nordic folklore and Norse Mythology. But I think the problem is that there are US studios(especially Hollywood-based) that probably don’t know much about those things that the fantasy franchises are inspired by, so they’ll either think of false stereotypes or randomly make their own stuff up(probably for no reason other than hug money-making profits). So maybe the UK could easily understand these mythology-based fantasy franchises and do a more proper adaptation.Seems like a better idea, right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MariPlayz Sure, there is the argument that the HP books have sold more than LOTR and was translated into more worldwide languages, but there also the argument of how much LOTR transcended pop culture long before the HP books came out(since the first didn't happen until '97). For example, if you listen closely to a few Led Zeppelin songs like "Misty Mountain Top" and "The Battle Of Evermore", they're clearly about Middle-Earth. Plus, in the show Stranger Things, which is set in the 1980s, they mention "Mirkwood" since Tolkien's books were already known as a huge part of pop culture. And yes, it's true that more people are more jazzed up about the latest Fantastic Beasts movie, but if you go up to any random stranger(even older ones) and say "You shall not pass" and "My precious", or even say now household names like Bilbo, Frodo, Gandalf, Aragorn, and Gollum, they'll immediately know what you're talking about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Majencia I understood the story. But when you look at it now, it's basically a Star Wars clone. For example, who's our main character here? It's a young orphan boy(Luke Skywalker/Harry) who, for his own safety, has been sent to live with his aunt and uncle(Owen and Beru Lars/Vernon and Petunia Dursley), until a mysterious bearded stranger(Obi-Wan Kenobi/Hagrid), who's actually the one to deliver him to his aunt and uncle when he was a baby, comes into his life and starts to teach him about this ancient kind of magic(the Force/Wizardry). Granted, he's gonna learn a lot more about this magic from an older and wiser teacher(Yoda/Dumbledore). Regardless, his uncle is against this magic stuff and doesn't tell him what really happened to his parents. But against his uncle's wishes, he leaves home for the first time, makes new friends, and meets a pretty and intelligent young girl(Leia Organa/Hermione). And although there will be a non-sexual tension between the two of them, he will only love her like a sister while she's struggling with the feelings she has with his best friend who's the scruffy comic relief(Han Solo/Ron). And then he learns about the existence and connection he has of this bad guy(Darth Vader/Voldemort)who is said to have killed his parentage with his sorcerer ways(the Dark Side/Avada Kedavra) after changing his name to Lord-something. But it turns out that our hero is naturally good at flying(X-Wing/broomstick) and locating incredibly small targets(Womp Rats/Golden Snitch).
Any comments?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Harry Potter is for children and the grown up fans either don't want to admit it or had just forgotten that they were children when they first got into a series that has been directly aimed at children all along:
-Dobby is clearly a cutesy cartoon character.
-The spell names have childish gibberish(Even "swish and flick" is kind of childish).
-When you looks at the characters' names(Longbottom, Flitwick, Dumblerdore, Wormtail, Buckbeak, Slughorn, Padfoot, Lestrange,etc), I mean, come on, those are clearly names you get from a Disney-ish children's flick.
-The way the books describe a character's actions, description, and dialogue is clearly on a children's book level There's even a talking hat with facial expressions and moving and talking paintings in the castle that act comical.
Any comments?
1
-
Majencia Harry Potter wasn't even a unique and original story that everyone claimed it to be in the first place. Harry Potter is basically a blatant clone of Star Wars. For example, who's our main character here? It's a young orphan boy(Luke Skywalker/Harry) who, for his own safety, has been sent to live with his aunt and uncle(Owen and Beru Lars/Vernon and Petunia Dursley), until a mysterious bearded stranger(Obi-Wan Kenobi/Hagrid), who's actually the one to deliver him to his aunt and uncle when he was a baby, comes into his life and starts to teach him about this ancient kind of magic(the Force/Wizardry). Granted, he's gonna learn a lot more about this magic from an older and wiser teacher(Yoda/Dumbledore). Regardless, his uncle is against this magic stuff and doesn't tell him what really happened to his parents. But against his uncle's wishes, he leaves home for the first time, makes new friends, and meets a pretty and intelligent young girl(Leia Organa/Hermione). And although there will be a non-sexual tension between the two of them, he will only love her like a sister while she's struggling with the feelings she has with his best friend who's the scruffy comic relief(Han Solo/Ron). And then he learns about the existence and connection he has of this bad guy(Darth Vader/Voldemort)who is said to have killed his parentage with his sorcerer ways(the Dark Side/Avada Kedavra) after changing his name to Lord-something. But it turns out that our hero is naturally good at flying(X-Wing/broomstick) and locating incredibly small targets(Womp Rats/Golden Snitch).
Any comments?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
grindelwald Harry Potter is for children and the grown up fans either don't want to admit it or had just forgotten that they were children when they first got into a series that has been directly aimed at children all along:
-Dobby is clearly a cutesy cartoon character.
-The spell names have childish gibberish(Even "swish and flick" is kind of childish).
-When you looks at the characters' names(Longbottom, Flitwick, Dumblerdore, Wormtail, Buckbeak, Slughorn, Padfoot, Lestrange,etc), I mean, come on, those are clearly names you get from a Disney-ish children's flick.
-The way the books describe a character's actions, description, and dialogue is clearly on a children's book level There's even a talking hat with facial expressions and moving and talking paintings in the castle that act comical.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Marianne 1)In Harry Potter, good wins over evil because of “love being more powerful.” However, in Lord Of The Rings, good wins over evil because evil doesn’t understand good’s motivations. Now that is a much more powerful meaning.
2)Who cares about the funniness? It’s not a a friggin spoof flick that doesn’t take things seriously. It you’re looking for a real comical fantasy, check out the Discworld series by Terry Prachett.
3)Lord Of The Rings is a more adult and mature fantasy series(unlike Harry Potter which is mostly for 12 year olds)which is why it has extended writing.
4)The Middle-Earth series has a whole lot more deeper meanings than Harry Potter. It has the positive themes of friendship, loyalty, honor, sacrifice, and hope versus the negative themes of corruption, betrayal, and genocide(which is far worse than prejudice).
5)Harry Potter copied Star Wars. Don’t believe me? Look at the evidence here:
Harry=Luke Skywalker
Ron=Han Solo
Hermione=Leia Organa
Hagrid=Obi-Wan Kenobi
Fred and George=C3PO and R2D2
Dumbledore=Yoda
Voldemort=Darth Vader
6)Lord Of The Rings involves an actual journey into the scope and mythology of Middle Earth. Harry Potter unfortunately involves being stuck in a school most of the time with very little places to explore outside.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jess V
1. Atheism is responsible for more deaths than Judaism or Christianity
Fascism and communism - both of which were atheist ideologies - murdered more than 150 million people in the 20th Century alone.
Communist and other godless regimes have continued to kill hundreds of thousands since. Add the millions of rapes, tortures and enslavements by these same godless regimes, and you’ve got yourself a pretty ugly picture.
The atheist’s favorite ‘go to’ accusation against Christianity includes the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials and the church paedophilia scandal. However, even assuming that all such wrongs occurred as a direct result of church doctrine (they did not, but let’s assume so), the numbers dwarf in comparison to what atheism has wrought.
The Crusades involved the deaths of approximately 1.5 million people. Most of them were soldiers on both sides, as well as people who died of disease and other peripheral causes. The Inquisition resulted in less than 5,000 deaths over a span of approximately 300 years. The Salem Witch Trials spanned just four months, resulting in a total of 19 killed.
There are other so-called ‘killings’ that occurred as a result of religious fervor (the French Religious Wars, the 30 Years War, and so forth), but even adding all those up, you could not even reach ten per cent of the numbers of deaths that godless regimes have caused.
To argue that “religion has caused more death than anything else” is a quip that has no basis in fact.
2. Hitler was not a Christian
Atheists routinely urge that the Nazis were Christian, invoking Christianity to justify their horrors. This is false.
Nazism and fascism never held themselves out as Christian enterprises. More particularly, Hitler himself despised Christianity. He saw Christianity as “meek” and “flabby” and sought to destroy it “root and branch”. He bemoaned why Germany was “stuck” with “feeble minded” Christianity and preferred other “strong-arm” systems.
Hitler’s writings and speeches are so full of passages dripping with contempt for Christianity that to argue he was Christian is like arguing George Washington fought for the British during the Revolutionary War.
3. Atheism is an ideology - whether you realise it or not
The most common argument is that atheism is not an ideology; it merely reflects the absence of faith in religion. They just don’t believe in God. Why can’t we please leave them alone?
But it turns out they don’t want to leave you alone. On social media most atheists are bizarrely vocal about their contempt for Christianity and, to a lesser extent, Judaism, for their beliefs. They believe these religions frustrate progress. They argue with great passion that we’d be better off if we just eradicated God once and for all. Godless regimes have always sought the eradication of God with passionate zeal, deadly efficiency on a mass scale, and unspeakable cruelty.
Such thinking is an ideology. Such “non-belief” has devastating consequences. Not believing in God is like not believing in seat belts. Or better yet: it’s like not believing in the police, the judiciary, medicine or fire stations. You don’t have to believe in them, but living in a world without them has consequences.
4. People of faith are responsible for a huge amount of good in our society
Atheists don’t give credit for what the Church and Judaism have done for civilisation: the creation of our notions of justice, the hospital system, the university, public schools, charity, progress, truth and freedom itself.
Who fought against and ultimately destroyed the evils of slavery? The Christians and Jews. Who were the only ones who fought against the horrors of eugenics (forced sterilisation of those the state deemed inferior), and China’s horrific “one child” policy? The Christians and Jews.
5. Judaism and Christianity created civilisation
A world centered around God has allowed us to pursue the great blessings of God: beauty, justice, truth and freedom itself. Such things mean nothing without God’s presence.
Atheists may enjoy such values, and even benefit from them, but they are only living off of what others have created. There is no real reason to pursue any of these values without a sense of purpose. Purpose itself is meaningless without God.
Without God, there is no reason to have children, or to hope for the continuation of our family name or our values. There is no reason to die for our country, or for freedom. After all, what’s the point? In a world without God, we need only do what the animals do: mate, eat, and make sure not to be eaten. We need only live for today.
This is contrary to the notion of “civilisation”. By definition, civilisation contemplates a future that is better than our present, and we derive lessons from the past to do so. Civilisation does not mean we just have a good time on the planet while we are here; civilisation means we seek a better vision for our collective future. We know this instinctively, but many never quite incorporate it into their worldview.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What about the story of Moses and the golden calf?:
When Moses came back with the Ten Commandments, he was shocked and angry to discover that the people had forced his friend Aaron to make a golden calf statue as their own made up god, and that the people had got drunk and fornicated. In other words, they disobeyed God’s commandments. Moses was so outraged that he smashed both the tablets on the ground. As punishment, he destroyed the golden calf and grounded it into water to make it bitter before forcing them to drink it. He then told those who were on God’s side to go stand my Moses, which a lot of them did. Moses then gave them each a sword and told them to kill only those who used images as aids to worship(since that goes against one of God’s commandments, ”Thou shall not make idols”), which they did. When it was over, Moses said,”When you sinned, the lord told me he would slay all of you. But I prayed for you, and he is going to put away your sin. Jehovah is indeed merciful and forgiving. He gave us directions to make a tabernacle. If we make it according to his specifications, he will meet us there. Since we are all sinful, God has prepared a way whereby we can approach him. We will offer blood sacrifices every day. Each year the blood will be placed on the ark of the covenant. When God sees the blood on the ark, just as he did in Egypt, he will put away our sins, and we will not die. It is God’s way of forgiveness.”
Get the message of the story?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think what makes Stephen King different from other horror authors is that he tries to link up the elements of fantasy horror from our imaginations, whether it’s vampires, werewolves, witches, zombies, and other supernatural beings, with real-life horrors of personal tragedies and traumas, racism, sexism, homophobia, pollution, collapse of the environment, and thus lend the social or psychological issues some of the weight that horror fiction could offer. Most of us have little to fear from monsters, and yet we live in cultures that are every bit as dangerous despite the non-existence of terrible supernatural forces.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PRHILL9696 What about these 5 unforgettable facts:
1. Atheism is responsible for more deaths than Judaism or Christianity
Fascism and communism - both of which were atheist ideologies - murdered more than 150 million people in the 20th Century alone.
Communist and other godless regimes have continued to kill hundreds of thousands since. Add the millions of rapes, tortures and enslavements by these same godless regimes, and you’ve got yourself a pretty ugly picture.
The atheist’s favorite ‘go to’ accusation against Christianity includes the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials and the church paedophilia scandal. However, even assuming that all such wrongs occurred as a direct result of church doctrine (they did not, but let’s assume so), the numbers dwarf in comparison to what atheism has wrought.
The Crusades involved the deaths of approximately 1.5 million people. Most of them were soldiers on both sides, as well as people who died of disease and other peripheral causes. The Inquisition resulted in less than 5,000 deaths over a span of approximately 300 years. The Salem Witch Trials spanned just four months, resulting in a total of 19 killed.
There are other so-called ‘killings’ that occurred as a result of religious fervor (the French Religious Wars, the 30 Years War, and so forth), but even adding all those up, you could not even reach ten per cent of the numbers of deaths that godless regimes have caused.
To argue that “religion has caused more death than anything else” is a quip that has no basis in fact.
2. Hitler was not a Christian
Atheists routinely urge that the Nazis were Christian, invoking Christianity to justify their horrors. This is false.
Nazism and fascism never held themselves out as Christian enterprises. More particularly, Hitler himself despised Christianity. He saw Christianity as “meek” and “flabby” and sought to destroy it “root and branch”. He bemoaned why Germany was “stuck” with “feeble minded” Christianity and preferred other “strong-arm” systems.
Hitler’s writings and speeches are so full of passages dripping with contempt for Christianity that to argue he was Christian is like arguing George Washington fought for the British during the Revolutionary War.
3. Atheism is an ideology - whether you realise it or not
The most common argument is that atheism is not an ideology; it merely reflects the absence of faith in religion. They just don’t believe in God. Why can’t we please leave them alone?
But it turns out they don’t want to leave you alone. On social media most atheists are bizarrely vocal about their contempt for Christianity and, to a lesser extent, Judaism, for their beliefs. They believe these religions frustrate progress. They argue with great passion that we’d be better off if we just eradicated God once and for all. Godless regimes have always sought the eradication of God with passionate zeal, deadly efficiency on a mass scale, and unspeakable cruelty.
Such thinking is an ideology. Such “non-belief” has devastating consequences. Not believing in God is like not believing in seat belts. Or better yet: it’s like not believing in the police, the judiciary, medicine or fire stations. You don’t have to believe in them, but living in a world without them has consequences.
4. People of faith are responsible for a huge amount of good in our society
Atheists don’t give credit for what the Church and Judaism have done for civilisation: the creation of our notions of justice, the hospital system, the university, public schools, charity, progress, truth and freedom itself.
Who fought against and ultimately destroyed the evils of slavery? The Christians and Jews. Who were the only ones who fought against the horrors of eugenics (forced sterilisation of those the state deemed inferior), and China’s horrific “one child” policy? The Christians and Jews.
5. Judaism and Christianity created civilisation
A world centered around God has allowed us to pursue the great blessings of God: beauty, justice, truth and freedom itself. Such things mean nothing without God’s presence.
Atheists may enjoy such values, and even benefit from them, but they are only living off of what others have created. There is no real reason to pursue any of these values without a sense of purpose. Purpose itself is meaningless without God.
Without God, there is no reason to have children, or to hope for the continuation of our family name or our values. There is no reason to die for our country, or for freedom. After all, what’s the point? In a world without God, we need only do what the animals do: mate, eat, and make sure not to be eaten. We need only live for today.
This is contrary to the notion of “civilisation”. By definition, civilisation contemplates a future that is better than our present, and we derive lessons from the past to do so. Civilisation does not mean we just have a good time on the planet while we are here; civilisation means we seek a better vision for our collective future. We know this instinctively, but many never quite incorporate it into their worldview.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1