Religious interpretations of the trilogy are a dime a dozen, but none of them has addressed the extent to which the characters within the trilogy are in fact religious, an obvious issue that, to the best of my knowledge, no one has touched (at least not in this forum). From a count of appearances of the terms 'God', 'Jesus', and 'Christ' throughout the trilogy, it would seem that these characters are not religious at all. In fact, most usages (see below), involve cursing! The wonderful scene of the ritualistic collective dance in Zion (Reloaded), the absence of religious icons of any kind, the absence of worshipping temples of any kind (be them churches, synagoges, or mosques), the absence of priests of any kind, strongly suggest a rather pagan (in the sense of 'irreligious', not in the sense of 'polytheistic') message. It would seem that the futurology of the trilogy renders the future of humankind as a religion-less one. My point for discussion: The religious message of the movie is that religion, as we know it nowadays (institutionalized worshipping), will cease to exist in the future of humankind. All that is left from religion are names and ways of speaking (especially cursing!), linguistic vestiges (and, to that extent, superficial indicators) of religious practices. Aside from them, there's no evidence of a religious attitude. Of course, there's faith and talk of The One, but they do not signify worhipping (one can certainly believe in God without being religious, that is, as a personal, intimate belief, quite apart from the institutionalizing that has done at least as much damage as good). Neo, very much unlike a God, or a messiah, is not worshipped at all (although, of course, he's admired, but that's quite different). Neither are any of the council members, or anyone else, for that matter. Some will argue (quite predictably) that the religion in the trilogy is hidden in the symbolism of the names. But that would be too obvious a way for the Wachowskis to send a religious message. I think they are far more intelligent and subtle than that. To me, all other religious readings in the trilogy are little more than overinterpretations largely motivated by an attempt to achieve coherence between an acceptance of the trilogy and the need for religion (and, again, by the surface of words -- talk is cheap). The most *parsimonious* interpretation of the religious message of the movie is the one I propose. Personally, I'm quite comfortable with this interpretation, for I tend to look at institutionalized worshipping with suspicion, to say the least, and I tend to think that it will eventually disappear in the far future of humankind... Of course, that doesn't necessarily make me a non-believer.
Appearances of the word 'God':
Matrix I:
Trinity : Goddamnit.
Tank : *******, I...I gotta tell you, I'm fairly excited to see...
Neo : God...
Tank : Oh my God...
Cypher : Yeah! There was an accident! God damn, a car accident.
Cypher : I'm tired, Trinity. I'm tired of this war. I'm tired of fighting. I'm tired of this ship, being cold, eating the same god damn goop every day.
Cypher : Well, surprise, ass-hole! I bet you never saw _this_ coming, did ya? God, I wish I could be there, when they break you.
Cypher : Oh no. That's what _you_ think. They're going to reinsert my body. I go back to sleep, and when I wake up, I won't remember a god damn thing.
Trinity : God damn you, Cypher!
Tank : *******, it's good to hear your voice sir!
Matrix II:
Guard 2: Oh my God.
Link: God! Oh my God, you're so huge, you should be picking me up!
Bane: Oh God.
Merovingian: Yes, of course, who has time? Who has time? But then if we do not ever take time, how can we ever have time? Château Haut-Brion 1959, magnificent wine, I love French wine, like I love the French language. I have sampled every language, French is my favourite - fantastic language, especially to curse with. Nom de Dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard d'enculé de ta mère! [Trans: Name of God of whore of brothel of **** of filth of jerk of ****ing your mother up the ass.].
Merovingian: No. Wrong. Choice is an illusion, created between those with power, and those without. Look there, at that woman. My God, just look at her.
Merovingian: Oh God, my God, Persephone how could you do this, you betrayed me! Nom de Dieu de putain de bordel de saloperie de couille de merde! [Trans: Name of God of whore of brothel of filth of testicle of ****]
Matrix III:
Trainman: You don't get it. I built this place. Down here I make the rules. Down here I make the threats. Down here, I'm God.
Coat Check Girl: Can I take your... oh my God.
[Zee/Charra]: Oh my God.
Lock: God damn it.
Apperances of the words 'Jesus' and/or 'Christ':
Matrix I:
Choi : Hallelujah. You're my saviour, man. My own personal Jesus Christ.
Neo : Jesus!
Neo : Jesus Christ, that thing's real??!!
Mouse : Jesus Christ, he's fast! Take a look at his neural kinetics, they're way above normal!
Trinity : Jesus, he's killing him.
Matrix II:
Link: Everything's still operational. Emergency system's already rerouting power. Jesus. As soon as they open that door, it's all over.
Computer Room Technician: Christ, what happened in here?
Matrix III:
AK: Jesus H. Christ.
Roland: But for Christ's sake, Niobe...
[?]: [Holy Christ would you look at that?]
[?]: Holy Christ!
Alot of people I have asked think the only symbolism in the Matrix is as a metaphor on Christianity!!! (Annoys the HELL out of me). They, of course, mainly think this because of something that they have read: Yes, the metaphor is there, but only in a symbolic sense!! As for the other philosophical messages, such as the impossibility of a mathematically perfect system, the difference between appearance and reality, or the contrast between choice and inevitability; these all come to a complete resolution that stands on their own. The metaphor to Christianity makes no sense without knowing about Christianity ahead of time.
I think the Wachowskis might be using this to say something about faith. Alot of Christians, or members of most any religion, accept all the creeds without really thinking about all of them. The Wachowskis I think are saying that faith only makes sense when viewed on top of understanding other philosophical issues. Faith shouldn't be something "blind" based on itself, but should be an "inevitable choice"; Although you can't know with mathematical certainty, you come to a point, as did the computer program "Oracle" came to, where you realize you must choose to believe in a purpose, in right and wrong, and therefore in a certain inevitability in life.
This is why I think the Wachowskis put all the allusions to Christ and the Christian religion into the movie. Just like these allusions in the movie, our faith should be on top of the philosophical realizations that the movie expresses.
oh course, if not all, most of the above quotes are defamation and would be considered an abuse of the words. If that's what your after then it's clearly more a slight against christianity rather than a confirmation. Or it could be a contrast between words and actions. That is what we say isn't how we behave.
In effect, uses of those words by the characters in the trilogy may well be interpreted, not just as a slight against Christianity, but also against any religion in general (assuming an ample meaning of the English term 'God', meaning that underlies different terms used by Jews and Muslims). In any case, I agree that religion (again, as institutionalized worshipping, which should be clearly distinguished from belief) does not stand well on the verbal behavior of the characters in the trilogy... And the other interpretation (inconsistency between actions and words), well, yes, it's possible... That would be the only way of justifying a religious reading of the trilogy in the face or in spite of the verbal behavior of its characters... Perhaps, the characters (very much like most of us) do not really mean to reject religious practices by cursing... However, once again, I could not see any evidence whatsoever of institutionalized worshipping.
religion is a belief everyone has it even if you think you dont. you have to believ in some form of way for us to be here and with that belief you have religion so i wouldnt go dissing religion quite yet
Well, it's a matter of definition. I define religion as institutionalized worshipping, which I distinguish from belief. You identify religion with belief. Under *my* definition , my point obtains. Under *your* definition, my point does not obtain. But since defining is delimitting (definitions are just meaning stipulations), we disagree on the meaning of the term, which is a rather sterile, superficial, uninteresting disagreement. You raise merely a semantic issue. Just drop the little term 'religion' and replace it by 'institutionalized worshipping'. My point still obtains.
b. To make part of a stuructured and usally well-established system.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the Englidh Language, Fourth Edition.
Copyright 2000 by Houghtan Mifflan company.
All Rights Reserved.
basicaly proveing my point as to you have religion and belief because you worshiping your ways everyday by doing and believing the same thing. "actions speak louder than words".
and also your worship is institutionalized because it is a well established system, because you show your beliefs every day just by the way you greet someone. so really i have won this topicality.
I didn't know presenting a different viewpoint meant "messing" with anyone. If you feel I'm messing with you simply because I'm presenting a different point, then you're not a true debater, but just a bully who takes different viewpoints personally. Nonethelesss, I will dignify your rather puny answer with a much, much better reply.
Worhship: 1 : to honor or reverence as a divine being or supernatural power
2 : to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion intransitive senses : to perform or take part in worship or an act of worship
(Merriam-Webster).
Obviously, when I greet someone I'm not worshipping that person (or anything else, for that matter), although, of course, I'm behaving according to some sort of institutionalized social behavior. My definition has two terms (institutionalized *and* worhipping). Your reply defined only one of them ('institutionalized'), on the basis of which you fallaciously transfered into the other (undefined) word. A classic example of the fallacy of equivocation, a rather elementary mistake for a 'debater'...
well if you knew anything about debate it is all about veiw points and who can argue theres best, buy calling names it just shows your immaturitie and lack of knoledge for the real subject.
i enjoyed your definition it accually proved my point and i will explain:
"to honor or reverence" witch proves my point of what you do with your beliefs and there for retracting religion back into the subject. "first impretions are everything" proveing my point on how someone would extract your beliefs when you greet them. (not worshiping a person when you meet them). ohh but if you would read my whole post you would see where i link worship into it. therefor destroying your ground on "only replying on one". ohh and if you knew anything about debate you would know that you have just dug your self a hole.
Assuming that all viewpoints are equally valid seems a little weak to me. Guys, please stop playing semantic games and back up your points with some good evidence. I hate threads that get stuck into personal quarrels. Posts should deal with the subject of the thread, but also be able to understand independently of previous posts.
to honor or reverence as AS A DIVINE BEING OR SUPERNATURAL POWER
Nuff said...
But, reply well taken, Jazz... My initial (and whole) point was, precisely, that Mac's commentary was a semantic one, and that semantic quarrels are sterile. His argument is one based on definition, the emptiest, most obvious, and sterile type of argument there is. And he's still at it, only that his commentary is full of common mistakes (circularity, biased selection of contents, etc.). But you're right, he's not worth it...
I might add that the agression, of course, was began by him, with his rather unnecessary commentary "don't mess with debaters", the last thing a true debater would say. But, I'll be the better person, and stop this particularly nonsensical debate right here. Mac, you can have the last word, which, if you take as a sign of victory, that would yet be another emphasis that is symptomatic of a fake debater. I won't dignify any more of your replies.
im just going to say this. you know nothing of debate, and your anilitical remarks just worsen your situation on that topic. ohh and the last thing a debater would say is that the other person wins. no a symptomatic sign of a fake debater would be that he trys to win without evidence. mine is all over this page. is it im not worth it or you dont wanna lose...
11-22-2003 06:19 PM
