LA_Songs
ago 2002 se unió
Te damos la bienvenida a nuevo perfil
Nuestras actualizaciones aún están en desarrollo. Si bien la versión anterior de el perfil ya no está disponible, estamos trabajando activamente en mejoras, ¡y algunas de las funciones que faltan regresarán pronto! Mantente al tanto para su regreso. Mientras tanto, el análisis de calificaciones sigue disponible en nuestras aplicaciones para iOS y Android, en la página de perfil. Para ver la distribución de tus calificaciones por año y género, consulta nuestra nueva Guía de ayuda.
Distintivos3
Para saber cómo ganar distintivos, ve a página de ayuda de distintivos.
Reseñas17
Clasificación de LA_Songs
Watching this movie gave me chills, finding out how the slaves were treated on-board the slave-trade ships, which stank like hell!
Learning the life of Wilberforce is truly inspiring: how we need such politicians in America today, politicians with faith, integrity and tenacity.
I recommend this movie to people of all ages, and would like more movie studios follow the suite, and produce contents that will last.
The only draw back of the movie is the Reality Check - the fear of showing some graphic scenes of the slave trades (corps, blood, human excrement, etc.) lest it gets an "R" rating. However, for people with some imagination, such graphic scene could be filled in by our minds. However, the director could tone down the graphic by using black-n-white footage for such scenes, but at least show it. That's my take of it.
Over all, it's a very constructive, beneficial movie for all ages. Take the kids to see it, and you never know who among them may grow up to be the next Wilberforce in America, or in any other country that need them - maybe in China - who knows?
Learning the life of Wilberforce is truly inspiring: how we need such politicians in America today, politicians with faith, integrity and tenacity.
I recommend this movie to people of all ages, and would like more movie studios follow the suite, and produce contents that will last.
The only draw back of the movie is the Reality Check - the fear of showing some graphic scenes of the slave trades (corps, blood, human excrement, etc.) lest it gets an "R" rating. However, for people with some imagination, such graphic scene could be filled in by our minds. However, the director could tone down the graphic by using black-n-white footage for such scenes, but at least show it. That's my take of it.
Over all, it's a very constructive, beneficial movie for all ages. Take the kids to see it, and you never know who among them may grow up to be the next Wilberforce in America, or in any other country that need them - maybe in China - who knows?
The book of The Da Vinci Code has been out for a couple of years, and people have had plenty of time to check out the so-called "facts" presented in the book.
The main lie in Da Vinci Code is that Jesus was secretly married to Mary Magdalene. Is that fact or fabrication? Let's check out an eyewitness' account and think about it. According to Apostle John, who was the eyewitness of the crucifixion, Jesus made arrangements for Mary, his mother, while hanging on the cross. Mary Magdalene was standing right next to her. Yet, Jesus made no arrangement for her. If Jesus were secretly married to Mary Magdalene, wouldn't he at least have said something to her before he died? But John recorded nothing that Jesus said to her or about her.
Dan Brown based his assumed marriage on an account in one of the Gnostic Gospels, written hundreds of years after the death of Christ, using someone else's name (Thomas, Judas, Philip, etc.) who clearly did not write it years after their death. The account said Jesus kissed Mary Magdalene (then the page was torn, and the account was incomplete). But Dan Brown's highly imaginative and heavily polluted mind jumped to the conclusion that Jesus must have kissed her on her lips, which led to the conclusion of this assumed marriage. How do we know Jesus did not kiss her on her forehead or on her cheek? I for one would rather believe the person who lived with Jesus for years, and not give any credit to an account written under a pseudo-name by someone who lived hundreds of years afterward.
So this lie alone by Dan Brown, deliberately and purposely presented, would disqualify this book, or the movie for that matter, as a historically accurate account. In fact, judging from the motive of writing this book, I would not hesitate to say that Dan wrote it to satisfy his anti-Christian bias; and so did Hollywood in producing this movie out of the same bias. If this book were written about Mohammed or about Islam out of even less amount of bias, Dan Brown will certainly be living in hiding now, like the author of The Satanic Verses' author Salman Rushdie still does today. But has Dan Brown ever thought about his own eternity? Though Dan Brown is making $millions now, can he take one cent with him when he dies?
The main lie in Da Vinci Code is that Jesus was secretly married to Mary Magdalene. Is that fact or fabrication? Let's check out an eyewitness' account and think about it. According to Apostle John, who was the eyewitness of the crucifixion, Jesus made arrangements for Mary, his mother, while hanging on the cross. Mary Magdalene was standing right next to her. Yet, Jesus made no arrangement for her. If Jesus were secretly married to Mary Magdalene, wouldn't he at least have said something to her before he died? But John recorded nothing that Jesus said to her or about her.
Dan Brown based his assumed marriage on an account in one of the Gnostic Gospels, written hundreds of years after the death of Christ, using someone else's name (Thomas, Judas, Philip, etc.) who clearly did not write it years after their death. The account said Jesus kissed Mary Magdalene (then the page was torn, and the account was incomplete). But Dan Brown's highly imaginative and heavily polluted mind jumped to the conclusion that Jesus must have kissed her on her lips, which led to the conclusion of this assumed marriage. How do we know Jesus did not kiss her on her forehead or on her cheek? I for one would rather believe the person who lived with Jesus for years, and not give any credit to an account written under a pseudo-name by someone who lived hundreds of years afterward.
So this lie alone by Dan Brown, deliberately and purposely presented, would disqualify this book, or the movie for that matter, as a historically accurate account. In fact, judging from the motive of writing this book, I would not hesitate to say that Dan wrote it to satisfy his anti-Christian bias; and so did Hollywood in producing this movie out of the same bias. If this book were written about Mohammed or about Islam out of even less amount of bias, Dan Brown will certainly be living in hiding now, like the author of The Satanic Verses' author Salman Rushdie still does today. But has Dan Brown ever thought about his own eternity? Though Dan Brown is making $millions now, can he take one cent with him when he dies?