Cool News
Massawyrm Talks THE GOLDEN COMPASS, Religion, And Harry's Review!!
Hola all. Massawyrm here.
I love Harry. No, this isn't one of those It's his birthday so I'm gonna publicly fellate the boss sort of things. It's that while there are many times in which we feel the other is a complete motard for his opinions on a film, there are a lot of times in which we not only see eye to eye, but when one of us beats the other to a posted review, it almost seems pointless to post our own – it's all already been said. Sometimes we seem to peel the words right out of each others heads. And such is exactly how I feel about The Golden Compass. I thought I was in the clear. If I took a few hours to nap after an early morning screening I would be fine, right?
Wrong. Harry beat me to the punch. Tortoise and the Hare and all that shit. With dread I clicked open his story and read line by line as he spelt out virtually every feeling I had for the film. It is gorgeous, a unique and wonderfully conceived fantasy concept that plunks you right smack dab into a world you've never even pondered, but almost instantly believe exists. You sit there drinking in every moment of the first act enjoying all the various fantasy ideas brought together with even the most tired and clichéd among them seemingly having new life breathed into them. And for a while you miss just how hollow this film is. You don't realize just how hard this film is trying to keep its best secrets for itself.
The exposition is thick as an ice cream cake fresh out of the freezer and just about as easy to cut through. There's a lot of information they want to lay out, a lot of questions they want you to ask while simultaneously refusing to answer almost any of them. That's what the next two films are for….and that's where this film begins to suffer its chief and most debilitating flaw. It operates under the assumption that there will definitely be a second and third film and has an ending that feels awfully familiar as a result. Remember how a large number of people felt a little let down at the end of Fellowship of the Ring? Remember that really, that was the climax feeling? Well imagine that without the promise of a followup film the following Christmas. That's what the final act of The Golden Compass feels like.
Now I'm certain that if this does well enough the answers will really begin to flow in the next film. But how long am I gonna have to wait? Is it a sure thing? Will it ever even happen? These are the thoughts running through your head at the end of this. And it shouldn't. A first film like this really needs to feel like it stands on its own, really needs to feel like its own thing, like something I WANT more of…not NEED more of to feel complete. But The Golden Compass has a big glaring TO BE CONTINUED practically plastered across its third act and it is kind of a let down in that way.
But it is beautiful. There are some killer moments and visuals that make you feel like a kid again. If you haven't read Harry's review, do so. He addresses all the salient details worth mentioning about this film – except he somehow forgot to mention the sheer awesomeness of every moment Sam Elliot is on the screen. Is it a SAG rule that all cowboy stereotypes MUST be played by Elliot, or is it that he is just sugarfried awesome with a hint of musk? Who cares. He kicks ass.
But is the film offensive? No. I've gotta side with the American Catholic Bishops that viewed this film rather than the headline grabbing William Donohue and his Catholic League. Sure, when viewed by an adult familiar with Pullman's religious stances and the overall theme of the books – yeah, there's still enough there for a reasoned adult to see the themes. But when viewed on its own, looked at without a lot of the contextual references that New Line and Weitz were very careful to excise from this mass distributed version of the story, there is nothing deliberately anti-religion, anti-god or especially anti-catholic. Does the Magesterium look a lot like the very worst of the Catholic church? Sure – there's a definite aspect of the Inquisition to it. But it is nothing to get in a twist over – just the usual anti-authoritarian stuff prevalent in just about every great adventure story ever written. But it's not like there really are still Catholics out there trying to tell us what we should watch, read or think...is there?
Oh.
And this bollocks about the movie being a gateway to the books – which admittedly do contain some anti-religious/anti-Christian sentiments – dude, if it bothers you don't let your kids read the books. It really is that simple. Tell them that the movie's different. It is. And it's safe. You know, as safe as a PG-13 movie can be. Donohue and his bunch have really kind of missed the point here. New Line specifically toned down the offensive content as not to rile up the boycotters, to provide a film that entertained instead of proselytized – and rather than thanks, they get calls of a boycott. Just what kind of message are you trying to send there, Bill? If you take issue with the books, caution parents against the books – not the movie that had its offensive bits sanitized.
Overall, it is a film worth checking out. I enjoyed it and found some of the bits to be a collection of truly perfect moments. But it feels incomplete. Maybe once I've gotten through to the end of the third, all of the holes will have been filled in with the awesomeness to follow. I mean, no one is let down by the ending of FotR anymore, are they? Instead they just get excited to throw in disc 3 of what is a 6 disc movie. Maybe I'll feel like that one day. But today, I feel like the movie kept all of the best stuff to itself for later. This comes Recommended to anyone who considers themselves a fantasy fan or has kids old enough to take to a PG-13 movie. It might not tickle your pink parts for two hours, but it will entertain you.
Until next time friends, smoke ‘em if ya got ‘em.
Massawyrm
Got something for the Wyrm? Mail it here.
-
+ Expand All
-
and it'll still suck.
-
and it'll still suck.
-
and cs Lewis. He feels they didn't tackle the correct questions. Well, to bad we don't have him editing every work ofliterature released to fit his personal preferences. Hes an asshol as bad as the religious zealouts just on the other side of the spectrum.
-
The ultra religious and the hardcore atheists all have the same final goal of controlling the freedom of the human mind. All they want to do shove their shithead views in everyone's face as if individuals shouldn't choose for themselves. Pullman is not a voice for free thought. He is a voice for his thought and that which does not meet his views is insulted.
-
he he.
It's a bad idea to cut the off a story just in case you get a sequel. The ending of Northen Lights (to give it the true title) is perfect, to cut it back to some arbitrary point (which no-one seems willing to specify) is cenceptually wrong. It's hamstringing the story's catharsis. Remove the end and you remove the reason that Lyra has been going all along. with no resolution to the story of the wee boy, then he ceases to become an impetous to drive into the second tale and becomes a throwaway character at the start of the next one.
It's also plain dumb to show a cataclysmic special effect shot of what is obviously the finale on the trailer and then cut the whole sequence.
What'll they do next? Leave Alamo Gulch and the Witch vs. explorer moments from Subtle Knife until Amber Spyglass? And then finish that with them in Hades? Actually I'd watch that, it sounds almost Byronesque. -
I walked out of the film feeling entertained. I had gone into this completely cold--no reviews, no books, no idea what it was about. Awesome. I was actually surprised about all the hype of anti christian/catholic themes. What movie were they watching? Cripes, must be the same crazies that saw messages in Aladin. Does the movie have a glaring problem? Well yeah actually it does. It will ruin your kid's view of those cute coca cola polar bears. But then---maybe that's a good thing...
-
How many GC talkbalks are we going to get? A new one goes up every other hour.
-
nice review
-
I could see not going to the movie on principle. Pullman is attacking them in his books. Why would they want to support that in any way?
-
Kids should question their beliefs (and EVERYTHING they are told to some degree) rather than just accepting their family`s views (even if they ultimately and eventually embrace them. There should be anti-religion films to balance out the flood of religious material that seems so heavy these days and for every church their should be a strip club or an adult bookstore. Zoning in so many cities is pushing the "sin stores and businesses" into the "bad" parts of town and creating more dangerous environments for people who want access to this material (Hi, I'm talking to you Guilliani, worst prick of a mayor there ever was.) We need a balance so people (especially young people) have alternative views and ideas. Bring on the atheist polar bears!
-
Sack up already. Having a movie you don't like released isn't the same as martyrdom, you whiny fucks.
-
If atheism's answer to churchs are strip clubs and sex bookstores, thats pretty pathetic. And most individuals wanting this sort of thing can get plenty of it on the internet, without getting in the way of those who don't want it in their backyard (thanks Rudy).
"You bring [kids] up teaching them to question authority, and you forget that the very first authority they question is you. -Susan Sarandon" -
. . . to Bakshi's Lord of the Rings that never got a finale. Real fans knew that Jackson's LOTR was coming in 3 parts. John Q Public didn't, but they can fuck off. . .
-
...antireligious books/movies shouldn't be allowed. Well, maybe to some people that is the case, but we do have freedom of speech, press, etc. In my mind it's more of a "people need to know what they're getting into" thing. Everyone is saying a lot of the antireligious elements have been removed from the movie, but if it wasn't for the controversy, I would not have known about it in the first place, and seeing the trailers would have made me want to see the movie. Then I would read the book to make the comparison if I liked the movie. But just as I said in all the talk backs about the antichristian stuff in Studio 60, I don't want to sit there and watch or hear someone bashing what I believe over and over. Nor do I want to financially support someone who does it. So I'm glad for the people speaking up, even if some of them are overblowing it, so that I didn't go in unawares.
-
The first book is a good fantasy book. The second book is not bad but not nearly as good as the first. To make it worse Pullman starts to pull out his soap box and hit not just the anti-religion themes, but the anti-God themes pretty hard. Third book is utter crap. It is poorly written and used almost completely as a means for Pullman to preach his anti-God views. I could live with him preaching his views if the book was good, but the worlds stop making sense. Characters do things that are just stupid. Characters know things "just because" and the ending is so bad that I almost couldn't believe it after I slogged my way through the book.
There is no way that a second and third movie can be true to the book and not be heavily anti-God. The central theme is that God is a lie used by evil people to trick us into doing what they want. Oh but wait, angels and souls do exist and matter is conscious and has a purpose...ugh!
Bad, just bad. I want the time back I wasted reading that book. -
... I would think someone with antireligious views would not want to walk into something promoting a religious without knowing what they were getting into ahead of time.
-
for the anti-Catholic bent of the book. I do have a friend that wished to see it with me, and I politely excused myself. But my brother is going, so I just forwarded my friend to him. It's a personal decision and something I came to on my own after reading about the book's controversy in Wikipedia and other sources. This is not any form of censorship, but simply my idea. Anyone who wants to see this movie banned...fuck 'em.
-
You miss my point. The conservatives like to shove places like strip clubs and bars in bad neighborhood's (they are still in someone's backyard, just not in an affluent person's backyard (Go f*ck yourself Rudy) and they pretend to deal with the problem but they simply put it somewhere else for someone else to deal with. I love how people group atheists together like they are forming an anti-church movement. Atheists don't believe in god or organized religion and that is the end of it. They usually respect other people's beliefs but don't share their views. A good parent is going to offer their religion and belief system to their kids but allow them to make their own minds up. And I don't want kids having access to porn or graphic material either no more than I would want my kids exposed to Fox News. (I know, Fox news is much worse.)
-
The 2nd book is the best of the three and the third is as good as most other books i have read, there are some parts of the third book they could live without for the film, but the journey to the land of the dead is fantastic. Olowyn thats your opinion, but I disagree and think they are the best series of books I have ever read.
-
With the 50 TB's for this I am left asking WHERE IS THE TB FOR THE SHOW "LIFE?" So damn good!
-
You ought to read more books. Seriously.
That's all I need say. -
This book scares religious people because they are frightened that this book will tell them something that makes them doubt their lords existence, this is because religion is brain washed into every child at an early age, so your mind cannot comprehend life in this world without Jesus being the son of God and God having created the world, This is not nearly as bad as POTChrist or something that really tells you how religion should be viewed and people respect this as artistic licence from Gibson etc. Watch the film and more importantly read the books and work it out for yourself, the most powerful thing about human beings is our ability to take multiple view points and information and to make up our own minds about things, religion tries constantly to take this away from humans by teaching succeptible children the way the world works from their point of view, its then really hard as an adult to break that cycle and not believe because you have been told you will go to hell and not see anyone you love ever again etc. If people want to believe in god I have no problem with it, but do not force it down other poples throats and try to boycott and ban anything which gives an alternative point of view. Children should not be taught about God etc until they are in their teens, then they are old enough to amke up their own minds, try selling that one to the catholic church, I had a priest tell me that my son would go to hell if I did not get him christened as I was, I told him to fuck off and I would do same to anyone else who tries to tell me what to believe in, I make up my own mind and Pullmans Ideas seem more scientifically possible than the ones in the Bible, however if my son grows up and finds religion I will respect his decison as informed and entirely up to him. This is after all the same Religious fanatics in America that dont teach children Evolution and say that carbon dating is false and made up by scientists for their own sinister ends. Fuck off. Mark my words in the next 50 years America will be turned into a religous state where science is shunned and called herecy, hmm a bit like Lyra's world in this book then, the anologies work because they are really there people, this is exactly what life on this planet was like 100 years ago, if you did not believe in god you were shunned and punished. Thats how we can feel for what life must be like in Lyra's Oxford, because history tells us it could have easily went that way in our own world and may still come back around.
The film might not do the book justice, but the book should be applauded for giving us a different and controversial point of view, those that dont agree can dismiss it if they wish, thats the point, freedom to choose. -
Massa, dude, why are you fighting that snake with She-Ra's Power Sword?As to the books, I kind of found them a pretentious load of bullshit written in the same vein that Michael Moore writes and directs his "documentaries." Meaning, there's a definite "truth" Pullman wants you to believe in, HIS truth, and I hate that kind of sly b.s. that people just seem to want to slurp up.Now, to establish my fantasy geek thread, I've been reading TLotRs every year since I was 11. I've read all the ancillary books and histories (love the Silmarillion, not too impressed with the latest book about Turin). And I'm in freaking love with J.K Rowling.So I'm not a fantasy hater. But these Dark Materials books left me with a bad taste in my mouth, so I don't know about spending my hard-earned money on this movie, despite the fact that they've toned the atheist shit down.I don't trust Harry as a reviewer at all, I sort of trust you Massa, but I think I'll wait to read Drew's review before I see it.
-
Dec 06, 2007 9:42:31 AM CST
How would christians and right wingers feel if the "magisterium"
by brian 2000
Can you imagine if the "Magisterium" was the "Caliphate"? Then William Donohue and the like--every right winger in the media and on the blogs--would be screaming bloody fucking murder if the movie was presenting some watered down version of the book so as not to offend Muslims. Actually, I can't wait until the Narnia filmmakers water down the clearly muslim/middle eastern Calormenes and their god "Tash" into non-offensive bad guys, because the right is going to go nuuuuts. The point is, these Christian crying about what a crime it is to even make a movie that might feature atheist themes are just part of the same continuum of people that includes those willing to lock up and beat/kill a woman for naming a teddy bear Muhammad. No, such Christians are into fatwas (anymore) but who knows what's down the road--they already think there is a culture 'war' that they have to win so they can tell us what we can and can't enjoy as art. If you want to forbid/boycott every work of literature or art that argues for an atheistic/non-christian understanding of life then you are going to miss out on plenty of the world's greatest art.
-
just to clear up a typo in the above; I meant to write: No, such Christians are NOT into fatwas (anymore) but who knows what's down the road--they already think there is a culture 'war' that they have to win so they can tell us what we can and can't enjoy as art.
-
I read plenty of books, I am also a published writer (that cant spell) just because your opinion is different to my own, does that make you right and me wrong, thats my point. I have the right to read any book I wish and I can choose which are my favourites with no prerssure required by others to sway me in any direction. I prefer them to LOTR books and i love LOTR and Harry Potter as well, I just prefer these, and I prefer to read Fantasy or science fiction books because they interest me more, but I will read almost any fictional story. So dont assume that because you did not like them that I have not read enough books to warrant an opinion as emmensely knowledgabe as yours, thats arrogance personified.
How the fuck do you put spaces between your paragraphs by the way. I hate this forum for that. -
no, but that was because it was preceeded by the rest of FOTR, which was brilliant.
unfortunately, all the reviews i've read complain that it isn't just the ending of TGC that's disappointing, it's the entire film.
-
actually, massa said "it's NOT one of those "it's his birthday etc. etc...." -- just saying.
-
i guess that kinda takes the shine of being a published writer, huh?
seriously, Skull, i have no problem with Pullman attacking religion but Olowryn's right: the third book is terribly written.
p.s. if you want to do paragraph breaks, you type '' all together.
see? -
As one who works with words it might better serve you to back up opinions with fact and not start addressing people by saying everyone else is full of shit.
As to your opinion of the books, thats up to you, my own Sister adores the series, as do several of my friends. Myself, I don't much care for them for reasons stated repeatedly in these talkbacks. But when you say that they are 'as good as most other books you have read' it only inspires me with dread. I have read many fantasy novels in my time and I rate HDM at the lower average end of the spectrum.
a 'p' within the greater-than less-than symbols will achieve the desired result. -
hmmm, sorry, that didn't work.
okay, you type the greater than sign, p, and then the less than sign. -
I accept that I should not have began my post with the words I did.
>ppPppP<
Anyway sorry if I offended anyone as it was not my intention and hindsight is a powerful thing. -
It did not fuckin work, shit. I am terrible at this, wher did I go wrong, symbols round wrong way?
-
...That bug-eyed nutbag. I wish Jesus really would lop off his head with a glaive. Unfortunately, life just isn't like South Park
-
Is a great debate; both in film and book. Why? Because Pullman demands that you accept the existence of another dimension--call it Dust or Aether or the Beyond, it doesn't matter, and *then* wants you to be an atheist. Tolkien didn't demand that you believe in Eru Iluvatar or the Eldar. He simply created a world for you where their existence was so grounded you accepted it. Pullman has a lot to learn from Toliken about suspension of disbelief.
-
Chill out, League
-
With that bit of disclosure done, I have a question. Do atheists/agnostics have a metaphysics which is sufficient to the task of creating or even understanding great action-adventure? Narnia and LotR are classics because they intimately link the struggle of the individual to the largest possible conflict. Atheists/agonostics are unconnected to these vast themes which have been the context of every civilization in history. Therefore, it seems that an action-adventure story limited to the atheist/agnostic worldview cannot rise above the sophomoric level of "polar bears in armor are cool". Now, I am not disagreeing with the idea that polar bears in armor are cool. It is a fantastic visual. However, when I discuss any of the classic stories, modern or ancient, with a nonbeliever, they seem to be stuck in this lowest/visual level of fantasy. It is very disapointing to be discussing Naria with someone and realize that for them Aslan's most important characteristic is his (His?) fluffiness. This is why I haven't read Pullman's books. Too many people I know, both believers and non-believers, have told be that there is "not much there". The only people who seem enthusiastic about them are the religio-phobes.
So I ask all of you, can a non-believer, someone who is unconnected to teleology and eschatology, create or even understand great action-adventure stories? -
Tolkien did force you to accept that Sauron and Morgoth before him were almost god like in thier power and that Gandalf and all the other Istari came from Valinor on the request of the (Cant remember thier names)Tahst is very akin to angels and Morgoth/sauron are very satanic in nature, so I disagree a little there with you. Otherwordly powers permeate the Rings books in the same way that the Force is just accepted in Star Wars, which by the way I alwas thought had quite atheistic undertones and Dust is very like the Force in those stoties, every writer tends to have you just believe the world they have created in fantasy, the problem perhaps with Pullman is he tries to set it in as real an environment as possible kind of like Nolans take on the Batman series, which I also like above other versions of that story. Is this very different from what they tell you really happened in old Earth in the bible,I find this justa s unbelievable, but it presents itself as fact whearas the rest are only ever fiction.
-
You may need to appeal to made-up things to give 90% of the population a sense of epic. The rest of us will just have to console ourselves with Douglas Adams, Alan Moore, et al.
-
or agnostic, for that matter. Divinity (in whatever form) exists. It's anti-religious, yes, but then again, so is the Iliad.
I remember something my religion teacher said in high school. He said that "An Atheist would say he hates God". I couldn't let that slide. I said "If an Atheist said he hates God, doesn't that mean that he believes in God and therefore isn't an Atheist?"
Now, I know Pullman is an atheist, and what he's trying to do with these books is portray a positive worldview without divinity, but to get there, he has to start with God.
Going back to your initial supposition, I think subjects that have are free of divinity can make great action-adventure stories. I thought National Treasure was fantastic, especially as action-adventure. And it's pretty much agnostic.
Now, you're probably saying: I didn't mean 'great', I meant 'deep'. And I see what you're saying: without notions of divinity in the sense of something greater than man, can one provide a milieu that is deep and powerful. The answer? 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Granted, I hated the film, but then again, I'm an impatient person. But many regard it as a classic, and there is no divinity present, unless you consider the aliens a proxy. But an atheist could still create/enjoy something like 2001 even if there is a proxy involved.
I hope that didn't ramble too much. -
The pseudo-divinity of Gandalf, while hinted at in the book, is not revealed definitively. Sauron's origin as a Maiar is also absent. While yes it is necessary for the Silmarillon and other works dealing with the 1st and 2nd (and 4th, for that matter, with the Sauron-worship cults) ages, the 3rd Age is pretty much explicit divinity-free.
Except, of course, when Iluvatar restored Gandalf. That's pretty much the resurrection (and the 2nd time Iluvatar intervenes in Arda, the 1st being the destruction of Numenor/transformation from flat earth to round earth, and the 3rd is the Birth of Christ (according to Tolkien)). But without consulting the book, I think Gandalf, when telling the others what happened to him, was very vague. I don't think he said what I just said. -
TVguy...I do, and I am an atheist, not directly from books I might add, just time and opinion. I love all fantasy books I just accept it as fiction and would not avoid writing about something like this myslef because I dont believe in god, as it makes a good fucking story
Kizeesh I hope this worked, thanks again. -
Eternally grateful
-
"Then darkness took me, and I strayed out of thought and time, and I wandered far on roads that I will not tell.
"Naked I was sent back - for a brief time, until my task is done."
Honestly, I think Tokien deliberately tried to keep religion out of the foreground of the book as much as possible (unfortunately, it's been a few years since my last reading of it; blame the movies for that). Yes, it's there ... but it's not obvious (like, say, Narnia). -
I was going to point out that the discovery of evidence of actual poop coming out of Bill Donahue’s ass for hot lesbians to eat was up there with Morgan Spurlock finding Osama, then TV Guy made his point.
Atheism does not mean you throw out or deny the last five thousand-odd years of human philosophical development. That’s what a dogmatist would do. Nor do turn off your imagination. Atheism just means you don’t believe in God. Indeed, it also means you have more of a connection to the ‘fantastic’, whether it’s the Bible or LOTR, because you admire the human ingenuity that went into creating it, rather than letting some bogus divinity taking credit for a good writer’s hard graft.
-
Even those who claim to be Atheists. I'm willing to bet that most people who say they are Atheists actually DO believe in a higher power, they just don't want to be part of organized religion. After all, clinging to the notion of a maker, an afterlife, whatever is very comforting, makes you feel you're living your life with the promise of something at the end of it other than nothingness. The Church drums it into people that Atheists hate God and all that bullshit. IMO the Church has no right to preach to anyone. All they have ever done is breed hatred for other races, religions and cultures which has resulted in constant war. Religion is designed to keep the world segregated and thus in never-ending conflict. Most Christians I've met seem to be more interested in being AGAINST everything else rather than FOR what they actually believe in. That's the attitude that the majority of religions fuel. It goes back thousands of years when the Church was used to control people, keep them in line, which was a lot easier then because people had a lot less to cling to. Getting people to hate other people is a quick and easy way of keeping followers on your side. Similar to supporters of football teams hating fans of others. Hatred, aggression comes so naturally to human beings. It's raw, instinctive.
-
"New Line specifically toned down the offensive content as not to rile up the boycotters, "
Shpil;d be: "New Line specifically toned down the POTENTIALLY offensive content as not to rile up the boycotters, "
Personally, anything that challenges and questions religion is healthy and necessary, in my book. -
Dec 06, 2007 11:12:40 AM CST
"It's raw, instinctive." ... which is why it's not religion's fa
by chrth
Yes, a lot of shitty things have been done in the name of religions. But I'd wager that a good lot of them would've still happened without religion. Isabella kicked the Jews out of Spain not because she was an anti-Semite, but because she needed their money after the war to expel the Moors (well, at least she was anti-Moor, but that was more 'nation control' than anything)
I cite South Park. If everyone was an atheist, the otters would still be fighting everyone over what the name of the atheists' group should be called. -
And I really should've said 'not necessarily religion's fault', but, well, subject limitation.
-
performingmonkey seems to be refering to an agnostic
-
The guy is a complete fucktard and almost makes Pat Robertson look sane.
-
And it was perfect. The movie ending of TGC is *not* the book ending. FYI and stuff
-
Actually, it wasn't. The orcs don't attack until the beginning of the Two Towers.
-
On apologetics. CS Lewis embraced them, as a late convert from atheist/agnostic to Christianity, while Tolkien (I believe a life-long Catholic? I'm not sure about that) was opposed to apologetics. His religious beliefs may have informed LOTR, but he was not purposely crafting allegories for the purpose of apologetics, as C.S. Lewis did.
-
Stalin and the purges. Mao and his political purges, intentional starvation, and working millions to death in labor camps. All done in the name of glorious man! No God, of any kind, involved at all. In fact, folks wanting to profess a belief in anything but the state were often tortured and/or killed. It's a silly idea anyway. Would we ever say, "All bad things have been done by people who wear hats! Because several hat-wearers have done bad things."? No, because hopefull we know that's stupid, but we think it's fine when we're talking about a person's beliefs or political leanings. Silliness!
-
Again. I'm right at the end; the Fellowship has just left Lothlorien. To never again gaze on it's majesty! While Orcs have attacked them on their way down the Anduin, and it's been a while since I've read the books (about four years), I don't think there's enough room in the last few pages to cover the death of Boromir. Man, I love those books.
-
Just putting it out there...
-
... it was true to the LOTR timeline, which Jackson kept true in his own movies (excepting of course, his changes both good (Shelob in Return), to head-scratching (Replacing Erkenbrand with Eomer), to horrible (tempeted Faramir brings Ringbearer to Osgiliath).Jackson stayed true to the timeline of the books, which he would have to do with a fairly linear movie. And, it wasn't a battle in the books, but a raid which Aragorn missed completely, and which did happen at the very end of Fellowship, which don't see Boromir off until TTT.Also, I think we can all agree that having Aragorn fight in a battle he completely missed in the book made for great film.
-
All of the above + all religious, racial and political atrocities. The ability to kill and create are both aspects of ‘glorious man’. And if you believe in God, you believe he made us that way, and since he’s always right, that’s the way he wants it
-
Irrespective of anything else. Nor am I! I mourn the passing of the 3rd age of Tolkien.
-
If you accept communism as a religion.This can run and run.
-
I'm just pointing out that the end of the book/movie disagree.
-
The Inquisition under Torquemada was driven by his cult of personality, not religion. Ditto the crusades.
-
Hey, if they're reading, they're thinking. If it's shiite, they'll figure it out eventually. I considered myself an atheist for years, read lots of stuff--fiction and not--that supported my atheism. And yet, now I consider myself a Christian, having experienced my own C.S. Lewis-style conversion. These days, if the kids are reading at all, it's a good thing. All sorts of kids read the Xanth novels, which have demons and non-explicit sex, but nothing about God. Horrors! They're great books, and the kids are reading, so who gives a shit? I think they should make the movies more like the Dark Materials book, so as the sequels come they become more anti-religious and simultaneously tedious and preachy. Ever read Heinlein's Job: A Comedy of Errors? It's a great book, people. And very disrespectful of Christian orthodoxy, making Satan more mature and, truly, more moral than God. But it's a great book. I really enjoyed Peirs Anthony's Incarnations of Immortality, years ago, but Satan turns out to have good reasons for what he does and God's essentially a narcissistic retard. You know, I think the message of Christ can withstand anti-religious books and the opinions of the irreligious. But perhaps that's just me.
-
I put that it caps just to make my point.
And I hope when everyone's gay lovers are finished, they spoon and whisper sweet nothings -
Dec 06, 2007 12:00:32 PM CST
I'll go to this BECAUSE of all the Catholics getting upset
by totorosan
And if any asshole protesting at the theater tries to proselytize at me as I walk in, I'll spit on them and tell them to fuck off.
Frankly, anything that irritates religious fanatics is OK with me. -
"It's a personal decision and something I came to on my own after reading about the book's controversy in Wikipedia and other sources."
How can it be a decision you came to on your own if you are basing it on fucking Wikipedia? To come to a decision on your own try reading the books. -
We all know who really created the universe...
-
Then atheism is a religion and, heck, pretty much everything is a religion. Sort of like the idea that churches need strip clubs to balance them out, that religion needs anti-religion . . . well, heck, then every national forest NEEDS a equaly sized landfill. Somebody needs to be murdered and tortured for every person who is not. For every house standing, one needs to be burnt down. For everything good, there NEEDS to be something evil. It's craziness. Craziness, I tell you!!
-
Anything that pisses off dogmatic atheists is all right with me.
-
The problem is that this is just not a good movie. There is no vision; it's very muddled, and 90% is extremely boring - for reasons I explained in the last TB. At least Peter Jackson found a way to make FOTR work pretty well as a movie; The Golden Compass just never manages do this. Scene after scene falls flat on its face. I don't think it is even as good as the Harry Potter films - which are very boring themselves. Strangely, having just read TGC again (reminding myself how good it is), I actually found the film to have a much stronger anti-church message than the book. I would say that the book is far more anti-science than anti-religious. The movie is a mess - but it was very clear that the Majesterium was like a Church - though it looked more Russian Orthodox than catholic.
-
In a very recent interview,director Chris Weitz stated:
"And as for those who are concerned that I have not used the word "Church" but only the word "Magisterium" for the bad guys, and that sort of thing, I would advise them to do a little research into the meaning of the word "Magisterium" for starters. Some people will only be satisfied if the film I've made is an outright attack on religion, which to me shows that they have misapprehended the meaning of Pullman's books as much as the "other side."
It's true, though, that "The Subtle Knife" and "The Amber Spyglass" tread in territory that is much more controversial than the first book. This is also addressed by a bunch of questions that I will lasso under the heading "what next?" Well, though I saw it as my duty to build the franchise of "His Dark Materials" on as solid a grounding as I could, it would all be in vain if the second and third films did not have the intellectual depth and the iconoclasm of the second and third books. The whole point, to me, of ensuring that "The Golden Compass" is a financial success is so that we have a solid foundation on which to deliver a faithful, more literal adaptation of the second and third books. This is important: whereas "The Golden Compass" had to be introduced to the public carefully, the religious themes in the second and third books can't be minimized without destroying the spirit of these books. There is simply no way to adapt them without dealing with Lyra's destined role, her secret name, and the war in the heavens. I will not be involved with any "watering down" of books two and three, since what I have been working towards the whole time in the first film is to be able to deliver on the second and third films. If I sense that this is not possible, there's no point my continuing to work on them."
Bottom line: The Golden Compass is being made as marketable as possible so that it will provide a solid financial foundation for the rest of the trilogy, and so that it will establish a loyal fanbase who will be then willing to follow Pullman and Weitz into much darker and more complex philosophical territory. Furthermore, as the article writes, the more people see the movie, or even just hear about it, the more will be intrigued enough to read the books. And that can only be a good thing.
For fans of the books who are concerned, here are some of the religious aspects which have been maintained in The Golden Compass film:
The evil organization is still called the Magisterium, which refers to the teaching body of the Catholic Church. Its members wear robes, medallions, and stiff vertical white collars. A district office of the Magisterium is covered in medieval religious icons. Mrs. Coulter has angels on her ceiling. Most importantly, the Magisterium condemns scientific research as "heresy" (a purely religious term) because it contradicts received teaching. Mrs. Coulter explains that Dust came into the world when people disobeyed The Authority. That's right, The Authority. They don't explain who that is yet, but that doesn't mean they won't. -
I know- I was just pointing out that this argument can run and run.
-
especially not the third one. And I really don't want a more literal adaptation of that. I would be more than happy to consign ex-nun scientist chick and the wheel people to the dustbin, for starters.
-
As I see it is this. Here on one hand we have a group of religiously motivated folks who, because the books this movie was adapted from were written by someone who does not share the length and breadth of their faith, condemn the movie adaptation because it in some way it threatens their cherished beliefs.
Funny thing is that I did not hear this same kind of bemoaning when "The Chronicles of Narnia: LWW" was released from the group on the other side of the hall. You know who we are, the rationalists. The ones who have dispensed with the need for god figures and mystical beliefs. Yet here we are cheering on the release of a movie like Narnia not because it couches Christian beliefs in a fantasy story but because IT’S A GOOD STORY AND WE WANT TO WATCH THE MOVIE.
Honestly, we just wanted to see a good movie. I feel the same way about "The Golden Compass". I give a rat’s ass about the "religious" connotations of a FANTASY film. I just want to see a GOOD MOVIE. If it makes me think, well then, all is right with the world. I was entertained AND I got some brain candy to take with me. I REALLY have a problem with a group of people who on one hand, profess to have ultimate faith and trust in their "DIETY", yet somehow feel ENORMOUSLY threatened by anyone, anywhere who posits that your invisible man who lives in the sky might just be a grand experiment in wish fulfillment. And that somehow just watching a movie will undo the years of brainwashing and indoctrination of their followers and (gasp) children.
If that’s the case, I really have to come down on the side of your deity not having such ultimate power and omniscience as professed.
-
And I got no problem with The Golden Compass. The movie, or the Dark Materials trilogy . . . other than the preachiness and writing didn't work for me, personally.But thank goodness for the loons who get all worked up over what they see as atheist apologetics, because then how would the "rationalists" get to feel so smug and morally superior to so many people at one time?
-
The movies will succeed or fail on their merits, as the books have done.
-
= box office disaster. It will fail hard.
-
Or rather, won't do as well as Narnia and the Ring Trilogy, the Christians are going to cream themselves and declare some sort of victory. The trick is that they'll still find some way of claiming that they're persecuted.
-
Theist: Someone who believes unequivocally in a Deity or deities and that these deities may intervene in human affairs.
Deist: Someone who believes in a higher power, but that this higher power has little to no effect on human affairs.
Agnostic: Someone who believes that there may be a god, then again, there may not be a god. This person just doesn't give it much thought.
Atheist: Someone who doesn't believe there is a god or are gods, or thinks gods are highly improbable to the point that they may be discounted.
Now, I think "agnosticsm" doesn't lie in the Theist-Atheist X-axis, but rather on a separate Y-axis. -
that some people still believe in religion.
-
for such a die-hard catholic, his books were remarkably religion-free.
i don't mean the absence of gods, etc - obviously that's a pretty big part of the Silmarillion - but nowhere in LOTR is there any reference to any kind of worship or organised religion. no church, no temples, nobody prays or wears an overtly religious symbol, or even discusses the existence of god. Aragorn, Frodo and the Elves invoke Elbereth, but you could read the entire trilogy and still be pretty clueless as to the nature of religious belief (if any) in Middle Earth.
Pullman's metaphysics are obviously different. He's writing the anti-Narnia and in the grand tradition of Paradise Lost. A lot of people thought Milton made Satan too sympathetic and here Pullman makes it explicit: the good guys are rebelling against the magisterium (the church or organised religion), the authority ('god' and his angels). The 'real' divinity is a kind of jedi-force called 'dust', which is being supressed by the most powerful angel posing as 'god'.
having read Paradise Lost, i thought the overall concept of a war on heaven is a great idea. Satan really is the most interesting character and has all the best arguments. The first book, moreover, makes it seem like Pullman has the potential to pull it off.
Unfortunately, the third book is just so stodgy and clunky, it trades epic grandeur for screechy polemic. worse, it makes Pullman's metaphysics seem every bit as dictatorial and dogmatic as the heaven he's waging war against: if the whole idea is to encourage kids to think for themselves and challenge received ideas, why are Pullman's own views telegraphed so obviously and with such hamfisted allegory?
Equally, it's deeply ironic that Pullman so explicitly cites Keat's negative capability - the idea of being 'capable of uncertainties' - but leaves you in absolutely no doubt who the good guys are, who the bad guys are, and what the resolution is.
also, the conclusion of the third book is weirdly at odds with what made the trilogy so interesting in the first place. why, for instance, should the young lovers blandly accept that the rules of the multiverse require them to live in different dimensions forever? it might work on the level of melodrama but it seems profoundly hostile to the idea that none of us should accept the status quo, not to mention things like diversity, adventure, and exploration.
-
That the books were even written well enough to warrant discussion. They're not. Not by a long shot. Despite poor characterizations, nonsensical motivations, and some groan-inducing dialog, the first one has just enough creativity and almost manages to maintain a point-of-view long enough to be relatively enjoyable, but the other two are absolute disasters, beginning about 1/4 of the way into the second book. Random, unnecessary point-of-view shifts, dangling plotlines, half-assed, lame fantasy elements, laughable innuendo (Coulter literally stroking whathisname's snake) and, worst of all, the abrupt transformation of Lyra from spunky sort-of heroine, to whiny, pathetic, tag-a-long to The Dull Annoying Kid with the scary cutlery with very little to do, because of some lame-ass excuse given about not wanting to use the fucking alethiometer. Yeah, Pullman...it was obvious you wrote yourself into a corner with the fucking know-it-all device, but come ON. Anyway...
-
I think I erred in not making certain things clear. In my post, I referred to religio-phobes as well as atheists and agnostics. I need to distinguish between these groups. Atheists and agnostics are rational individuals who have examined the case for religious faith and have come to reasonable conclusions (either, "There is no God", or "I don't know"). Please note that a third rational/reasonable option is available, i.e. "I believe". Religio-phobes are individuals who have an irrational fear of religion and who are driven by this emotion. Of course, not all believers came to their faith in a strictly rational way. I'm just pointing out that a rational person can reach any of these three conclusions. There is nothing inherent in logic or science which leads inevitably to belief or non-belief. I want to make sure I don't inadvertly lump actual atheists and agnostics in with the pants-wetting antics of the religio-phobes. So let me rephrase my previous question: Without a battle of Good vs Evil, without Divine Purpose, without Final Judgment and an Afterlife, is it possible to have an action-adventure story that rises above the merely enteraining? My view is that for non-belivers the question is moot since there is nothing up there (metaphorically speaking) for any story to rise up to.
-
I have to say that my fellow erm...'people of faith' who are getting riled up about this movie need to shut themselves up. I already have a tough row to hoe and I dont need your idiocy to make my life any harder. Yeah yeah I'm so put upon, right? So anyway, as a man of faith, I...
...did not read Tolkien for spiritual gain
...did not read CS Lewis for spiritual gain
...did not read this Golden Compass thing at all. Even if I did, I do not think I would lose my faith over it.
If I want to read a book and have it make me think deeply about spiritual things, I'll crack open Exodus, or the Book of Martyrs or something like that. And the problem is that 99% of other spiritual folks have the same opinion. Its the lunatic 1% that makes the rest of us feel bad. If you want to know how you can tell who that 1% are, its really easy: they're the idiots shouting anti-gay slurs and waving 'God killed you cuz of fags' signs at military funerals.
THOSE are the 1% who think this movie is evil and shouldn't be made. -
I feel neither smug nor superior. I am, however, somewhat itchy. (might be the sweater)
-
I read and enjoy superhero comics without believing the superheroes to be ‘real’. I don’t think less of Die Hard when I realise John McClane is not a real guy. Similarly, just because I don’t believe in an absolute good or evil, it doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy, or indeed write, a story about a battle between good and evil. The skill of the story is in the telling, not whether it reflects reality
-
The minority of religious people must beware the well-organised monothilithic group of power hungry atheists! Pity the poor, downtrodden Christians and their folkloric mysticism attempting to do battle against the true rulers of our civilization!
Am I pouring it on a little too thick? Well, it usually works in a less strident style. -
Like the ancient grain? If you learn nothing else, you should learn how to spell the few forms of the word "spell." Is that really too much to ask?
-
Christians or Atheists...
admit it. No one really knows what the hell is going on, any one who claims to is an ass. All that aside, I read fantasy books for a sense of wonder. Guess what's at the center of wonder...yup. Mystery. -
having an abscence of faith is not a uniting characteristic. An atheist does not identify with atheism in the same that a Christian identifies with Christianity (or any faith for that matter) Also, eXcommunicate, I think you're definition of Agnostic is WAY off. I don't know whether there is a God but that's not because I don't think about it, quite the contrary.
-
I was not breast fed on Joseph Campbell. URRRRRRP!
-
Dec 06, 2007 2:02:30 PM CST
No, Pulman was more concerned with the corruption of religion...
by killakane
and it's inculcation into politics, he's made no bones about his view on Neo-con Christians, and current U.S Repulican driven expansionism.
I think he's wholly entitled to tackle these themes and has done so without denegrating the principle tenets of the supposed faiths he's alleged to have offended. It's only those with such resolute and dogmatic knee-jerk attitudes to this type of material, founded on ignorance and hysteria that take such exception and exhibit the very repressive and controlling zeal that Pullman sought to expose with the Magisterum. A similar response was invoked by the General Synod when Python's Life of Brian was released in the UK, 25 years or so down the line it has been voted by the British Public as the greatest comedy of all time. Freedom of speech and the platform to articulate such ideas (providing they don't insite hatred) is what a true democracy should allow. -
Bravo! Well said.
-
I haven't actually read the Narnia books so I'm not sure what he's talking about specfically. Is there any truth to this whatsoever or is this guy just taking potshots? Because when I saw the movie it didn't seem remotely hateful, not like how one British journalist it was.
-
Are those who believe that the existence of God can be neither proven or disproven. To say that they don't about God much is a misnomer. Some do and some don't. I know agnostics who have study religion and spirituality extensively. I also know agnostics who say, "The question isn't, 'Does God exist?' The question is, 'Does it matter?'
-
I just don't think there's any proof it exists.
-
i lie awake at nights worrying if there really is a dog.
-
...that's all I'm sayin'.
-
I also have trouble with excommunicated's definition of agnostic. Agnostics DO tend to think about the issue quite often, but they acknowledge that there are no definitive answers. So what's the term for believing in Divinity but not in man-made religion?
-
I had this argument in an ESPN chat too. Check dictionary.com.
-
There's a group of agnostics that claim "If I had proof, I'd believe in God". That drives me nuts. If an ATHEIST had proof, he'd believe in God too. Might not like Him, but would believe.
-
Not really sure.
-
And I say this as a Catholic priest. As a fan of Tolkien, JK Rowling and any good fantasy, let's try taking things easy. Screaming for boycotts only breeds ignorance and pretending that the Church hasn't had, to say the very least, a checkered past is ignorance of the most dangerous kind. Of course organised religion can be corrupted as long as it is in the hands of mere, fallible human beings. That's why we pray to God to keep us true to the values of the Gospels. I can't wait to see the movie and it's not going to shake my faith, nor should it shake the faith of any committed Christian. It might make us be more observant of the evils that can slink their way into our lives and more determined to live out the true spirit of Christianity. By the way, Speed Racer looks awesome
-
You're an idiot of epic proportions. Kids should be exposed to things their parents don't want them exposed to? How about I take your kid to Klan meeting and tell him who is duh-stroyin; teh cuntry? Afterwards, he can hit up NAMBLA headquarters and a Hitler Youth rally, and maybe then we'll go to a pornshoot. You fucking idiot. Let parents decide how to raise their kids, not society, government, hategroups, or anyone else.
-
and have there views only because the views of Christ and God doesn't appease them and their lifestyles. When you're face to face with God I guess you can explain it to Him. Why no one would want what Christ is offering is beyond me.
-
My God (pun intended) this has really grown arms and legs from where it started, I cant believe there is actually intelligent discussion about religion, faith, racism and politics on a web site for movie scoops.
And people say this book becoming a film is a non event...Hmm. Seems to be the debate is on fire.
About Tolkien, I agree that he tried to keep away from bltantly promoting his beliefs in terms o religion, but many of his other beliefs are inherent to the text, like his 'before his time' views on nature and the rampage of thr world by Industrialism
Pullman has in some ways done the same thing, yoour own beliefs, thoughts and musings on the world will alwasy come out in a writer, its the ability to weave those ideasl and thoughts into a coherent story that makes a writer diffferent from everyone else.
I think perhaps its a shame that these books will always be remembered for being the atheist Narnia, when in fact in my opinion there is a great story of growing up and the innocence of childhood in there.
Sagart, have you read the books as a clear Christian? I am interested to hear your thougths if you have. My mother is Christian and is going to see the film with me on Saturday as she also loves the books.
I have loaned these books to 8 people so far, 7 of them absolutley loved it, one who'smother is super strict Religious wise was uncomfortable with some of its ideas but enjoyed it reasonably and 1person who I have offered them to, who is a religious fanatic and refuses to believe in evolution etc is the only perwson who has refused even to give them a try when I explained that it has some thought on religion that are different to her own.
I find something uncomfortable about people ho refuse to listen to people tih slightly different views to their own, all I think is Stallin, Hitler etc -
Why no one would want what those Nigerian princes are offering in those spam e-mails is beyond me.
-
That should have read the Rapage of the World, not rampage, my typing is shit on this new keyboard.
-
Ha! Great AND quick. Very nice.
-
Same category as kneeled/knelt, learned/learnt, etc. It's a British derivative thing.
-
There are a lot of attacks on Donahue for his call for a boycott. There seems to be a general misunderstanding about the idea of a boycott vs. censorship. A boycott is the opposite of censorship, which is a government intrusion on First Amendment rights. A boycott, on the other hand, is a pure expression of First Amendment principles. It is a person or persons expressing their opinions, and suggesting a means of achieving a certain end. In this case, the boycott is intended to pressure studios into not spending money and making films that contain ideas or visuals that are offensive to those persons calling for the boycott. The First Amendment allows for everyone to express their opinion. Whether or not you want to engage in the boycott is up to you. What is really interesting here is that the head of the Catholic league is calling for a boycott while the Bishops are at the same time not joining in, and have instead expressed their own opinions. While Catholics are required to defer to the Pope in matters of faith and Church doctrine, we are not required to simply agree with every Catholic who says one thing or another. I will likely not see the film, even in it's watered down form. I will give my reasons. I have read statements by the author of the books in which he as described the series being about the quest to "kill god". He is not ashamed to be an atheist, and he is clear that his books are, at least in part, intended to draw children and young adults away from a belief in God. Fine, he is entitled to his opinion. But the last time I checked, writers get money for their books when they are made into films, and often get some percentage of the profits. As such, if I were to see the film, I would be putting some money into the pockets of someone who, from my view, is leading people astray. He has a right to his opinion that God doesn't exist, and I have the right not to subsidize this opinion or have my children exposed to it. To quote someone, "It doesn't matter if you believe in God, because God believes in you." And to quote Dafoe from the great film Last Temptation of Christ, "I know that God exists."
-
Dec 06, 2007 3:50:00 PM CST
If you see one film this year, make it The Golden Compass!
by william landis
A masterpiece... Downright brilliant. This glorious, glamorous, guns 'n' girlies romp has got the lot. An unmissable romp... New Line must be chomping at the bit for a sequel. And so am I. Nicole Kidman deserves an Oscar for her performance as Mrs Coulter. 5 stars!
-
You are like evryone entitled to see or not see tis film, te boucott hoever, wy campaig for other peple to follow your view point, why not be satisfied that yoou ave made a decison that is right foor yoou and yoour family, why campaign for hollywood to not make movies of tis sort, atheiists were not campiagning foor them to stop making pro religious films, llive and let live and choose your oown destiny, dont force others to follow along behind yoou.
I am not saying this is your view point, just dont agree that boycotting is somehow better and ok compared to censorship.
perhaps we should bycott most hollywood films for thie knackk of being utter shite in the majority? -
Trouble is, the catholic League is boycotting the wrong thing. The studios bent to the will of Christians BEFORE they made their voice known. They are, in effect, punishing the studio FOR listening to them. In effect they are saying "Screw you, Hollywood. We're gonna boycott you one way or another." And someone's going to ask: why bother listening to them at all? Let's make movies for everyone else instead.
If Donohue was arguing your "Pullman is a douche, don't give him money" angle that would be one thing. But they are stressing a boycott on content that isn't present in the work in question. And they are attempting to punish Hollywood for taking a great story with questionable content and straining it through a filter to void out anything questionable.
It also doesn't help that Donohue gladly steps in front of the camera every chance he gets. Kind of goes against that whole 'doing yopur good works in secret' thing of Jesus's, don't it? -
Most of the Christian groups are doing a pre-emptive "it'll get them to read the books" boycott; the Catholics are just in the forefront of this one publicly because of the Magisterium references. I can pretty much guarantee that there will be more non-Catholic Christians boycotting this than Catholic ones.
-
it just looks annoying.
-
About a 54 character limit. Yeah, I know. It sucks. But it's been like that for a while now. So...focus on brevity.
PLEASE take ten seconds to PROOFREAD! It'll take less time than typing a mistake-riddled post, reading it over after it posts and realizing that it is mistake-riddled, bitching that there is no edit function on the TBs, and then posting another time to correct previous typos. Seriously, proofread. I enjoy reading everybody's posts but not when I have to be a mind reader/ psychic. Bless you. -
yep, that's a picture of you!
"denial" is a powerful word when discussing issues of faith, or lack thereof. One thing that religious people and atheists have in common, I think, is an equivalent passion to see past their own habits of doubt and external forces pressuring them to either believe or not. The argument that what jesus is selling happens to be appealing doesn't make it more believable, in fact, it makes it worthy of investigation and diligent skepticism. Ever hear the phrase "there's a sucker born every minute?" How about "Follow the money?" Religion, every religion, pretty much throughout history has been exploited, encouraged, transformed or even invented by a ruling class to keep the masses subdued. This isn't an indictment of anyone's faith in particular, but it's a sobering fact, one of many many many, to keep in mind when arguing the merit of what you happen to believe. Some of the meaner atheists on this board might argue that you believe so strongly what you believe because you were indoctrinated as a child into whatever tribal mythology your community happens to subscribe to, and there's definitely an argument for that idea, but it goes back to the issue of denial again. Some people decide to deny their cultural upbringing out of rebellion against it, others go the other way. personally I have a hard time thinking that anyone can 'decide' or 'deny' any belief system. You believe what you believe, you can't 'try' to believe something, you can only fake it. Agnostics are the real enemy. wishy-washy pansy boys. let's kick their asses together! -
Why is it that the atheists and agnostics are the ones that inspire so much righteous, biblical wrath? If anything, we should be dismissed, mocked, even pitied. I respect whatever people believe, and I try not to judge anyone, it takes diff'rent strokes, after all, but MAN, whenever I say something like, for example:
" I think that if you happened to be born in an arab country you'd probably be muslim, if you happened to be born in Israel you'd probably be Jewish..."
People get that vein popping in their forehead and they want to smite me. What the hell is wrong with that? Also, if I say something like:
"I think that life is a completely random event in the cosmos and that when we die our consciousness ceases to exist"
They fully expect and want a lightning bolt to strike me down dead. What the hell? If you believe in an afterlife, that's fucking great for you. I'm jealous. Imagine an atheist punching out a Christian because the Christian said "hey buddy! let's hang out in heaven if I don't see you again!" I think everyone would agree that the atheist guy was an asshole. I still expect religious people to either laugh at me or look at me like I'm a cancer patient when I tell them I'm atheist, but instead, they want to beat me up. Let me ask you this: If you believe, I mean reaaally believe that you're going to heaven, and I'm probably going to hell, to BURN FOR ALL ETERNITY, why THE FUCK do you care if I don't? -
Nice post. Nice username, too (go TPB!).
What many don't realize is that it's not up to atheists to prove that god doesn't exist, it's up to Christians to prove god exists. And that will never happen. As an atheist, I don't 'hate' or 'pity' those who believe in god. I simply don't accept the concept is logical in any sense and leave it out of my life. It's funny how many religious folks get SO offended and defensive over this topic, yet they're supposedly 'true' believers. If *I* believed in god, I wouldn't feel so threatened and insecure every time a non-believer said anything contrary to my faith. Oh well, not my problem. -
I think this is beacuse they fear above all else that yoou may be correct, whearas if everyone else on the planet believes the same thhing it will make them feel better, thats the problem with us humans, we want to fit in but we also want to be right all the time.
There is a reason that this book ends up in Adam and Eve territory, its the atheists greatest example of everything that is wrong with the bible, both Adam and Eve are punished for eating from the tree of knowledge, they were chastised for wanting to learn, the dicotomy of that, is that the ability to learn and desire to discover new things is what sets us apart from a normal animal, so its a perfect example for Pullman to use in the book to illustarrte his beliefs. -
I dont think its fair to say that is up to religion to prove god exists. I think thats an Atheist point of view.
No one should have to prove anything, but as humanity develops and evolves, we have through time found more evidence to support atheist claims than religious, perhaps thats because every scientist in the world has a mission from satan himself to disprove God. Thats what some think.
It's interesting to see why no one, even extreme religious types has ever had a go at Star Trek, It after all paints a truly scientific and atheistic world in Earth and always explains everything by science, in this mono race society of the future, it was especially explored in the DS9 series as they almost mocked the Bajoran beliefs, I never saw anyone boycott or lobby star trek, so HDM is not the first aheistic book to come along, it just doesnt try to hide it in any way
So even the idiots of the world that cannot see anything other than they are told, will still see Atheism in this. And only that, no story. -
You and Harry's reviews are why I keep reading reviews here and tolerating the world of talkbacks. This is a nice, thoughtful review of a movie that I am very much looking forward to seeing. Between you and Harry's reviews I am prepared to both have my options open for the changes but to also be ready to enjoy the parts of the movie that work.
NICE PECS ON THAT IMAGE, TOO! *heh heh* -
yes, the persuit of knwoldge is a wondoful fing.
evil cristians are tyring to keep us in ingorance. -
Indeed,
have you made it your mission to say something against me as much as possible?
Its late, I'm tired and my keyboard is fucking terrible, it has a mind of its own.
Compared to earlier I think I have got much better, then you come and mock me
Damn you to a particle of dust, I am giving Atheists a bad name, I actually proof read that one as well. -
It wasn't the "Tree of Knowledge". It's the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. There is nothing wrong with knowledge in and of itself. In Proverbs it talks several times about how you should grab onto knowledge and hold onto it. Besides, Adam and Eve walked with God, if they wanted to know anything, they could have simply asked him, instead of going after the promise of some fruit.
-
As someone who has read the books, what I found ironic about your review, is that the first book is very much a stand-alone story. It all happens in a single universe and deals little with the meat of book 2 and 3's story arc. I don't mean that as a criticism of what you said -- perhaps it's rendered that way -- but it does seem ironic, given the nature of the story.
-
All parents pass on their beliefs to their children. To talk about churches brainwashing little kids and they shouldn't be taken to church until their teenagers makes no sense. Part of being a parent is passing on your ideas of right, wrong, and how the world works to your children.
Regarding "this must be how God wanted it"... uhm, no. Creation was made perfect and things are the messed up way they are now because sin entered the world. It is NOT how God made it. -
you're effectively saying God doesn't exist...anymore?
-
As someone else said, it is impossible to come up with proof for the existence of God or the lack thereof, because the way everyone looks at evidence is clouded by their worldview. Certain things that happened in the Bible proved as historical fact? Sure. But that only deals with the physical history, not the supernatural. If someone is dead set against accepting it, they will always see whatever proof is presented in a different way than the one who believes.
-
No, I'm not saying God doesn't exist anymore, I'm saying that He doesn't have the same direct interation that He did at the beginning.
-
Depends which version youy read, my interpretation was always that God was telling them not to wear clothes or farm oor anything, just be like a normal animal and you will have no pain (Because you will know nothing of yourself)Adam and Eve rebelled aginst this and God was not a happy chappy.
I am not a biblical scholar, so perhaps I am wrong in some ways, but I dont agree with your interpretation of the story. Also when you talk about the bible telling you to hold onto knowledge, you have to consider the dark ages when seeking new knowledge was considered herecy.
I'm off to bed,chow for now -
"Why bother listening to [the Christian leagues] at all? Let's make movies for everyone else instead."Unfortunately, there just isn't enough of "everyone else" to have a winter blockbuster. It's not really censorship that's happening here; it's catering to the masses.
-
They weren't told NOT to farm, the garden provided the food so there was no need. As there was not a need for clothes, and there were only the two of them and they had no reason to think it was wrong as it was how they were made.
As for the "dark ages" comment... so because for a time the people in charge were doing things wrong, that invalidates the original truth? -
Why not?
Why have so much interaction thousands of years ago and then none anymore, if the son of God was reborn, people, even religious zealots would dismiss him as a heretic and deny him his right. He would be considered a nut job by todays standards.
Back then the Northern ights or something similiar woould seem heavenly and unexplainable, so people invented god.
why is there a need to have a god?
I know te difference between right and wrong and I can pass on my thoughts to my children, but I will encourage them to learn to make up their own minds about things.
If you tell a chi8ld that God exissts and he created the world in 7 days etc etcf for the first 16 years of thier life, they are going to have great difficulty changing that mind set when they are older, this is what the CVhurch wanst to happen.
If I tell my kids about all religions and also about other beliefs and tell them they can decide what they want to do themselves when older, surley that is a preferable option, If they find religion I will support them although I may disagree with their views, It would be up to them as an adult to choose. -
your argument goes equally for the other point of view too. You get that, right? What one believes or doesn't believe is 'clouded' (influenced, informed, etc.) by their worldview, and whatever they've been taught since childhood. If I saw the image of 'the devil' in the plume of smoke on 9/11, and you saw it too, would it mean different things to us? Absolutely. Our beliefs are formed not just by our objective experiences, but by what we expect and want to experience as well.
And- religion is taught. It's a construct. whether it's a divine construct handed down by God on magic tablets or it's a human construct that seeks to explain the mysteries of existence through vague but common human sentiment it's something that we are brought to. I always wondered about the classic 'blue lagoon' scenario, children growing up with no knowledge of their cultural heritage, barely even any language, are they damned because they've never heard of Jesus? Seems like a bit of a raw deal. Then again, it seems like a bit of a raw deal to tell children that they're going to burn in hell for eternity too. -
How much did the people in power over the years change all the texts to suit thier own aims at the time? Its still the history of your religion
You cant ignore the darker parts when it suits
Last reply tonight -
I don't know why not. I'm not God, nor do I claim to know everything. Not even remotely.
And yes, I know that argument can go either way, that's why it would be impossible to prove either way to someone who either adamantly believes or adamantly doesn't believe. But now I do have a question... you say you know the difference between right and wrong. How? How do you know what is right and wrong? How do you decide? Law? Laws change. Things that used to be illegal now are, things have gone from being legal to illegal and then back again. What you feel to be right and wrong in your own mind? How can you call what anyone else does wrong then, because they obviously felt it was right for them?
Perhaps that's taking things a bit too far in what started as a movie talk back. lol -
I will reply, its too late 00.15 in Scotland
-
I have no intentions of changing the darker parts of history or denying they happened. Am I, as a Christian, sometimes ashamed of the things that people claiming the name have done in the past? Yes. Do I try to defend or cover them up? No. To do that would simply be to let the same things happen again, and that can't be tolerated.
As for changes, they have pieces of scrolls dating back to the time of Christ and beyond, and they line up. -
Take Philosophy 101. It'll answer those questions for you.
-
I'm simply asking for someone's point of view.
-
it always comes down to that- Religious people truly, honestly believe that Religion is required for humans to behave morally and ethically with one another. Who knows, maybe that's true for some people, maybe it's true for you, but it ain't for me. I count myslef lucky that I was raised by honest, decent people, taught good values, and that I've since made friends and been welcomed into a community that relfects and honors those values, but none of it has ever had anything to do directly with religion. In fact, I'll go further, and suggest that you may be putting the cart before the horse. I don't believe that morality flows from religion, I believe that religious doctrine on morality flows from a much older, much more natural human instict towards what we identify as morality. I find it interesting that Protestants and Catholics can murder eachother over trivial, incidental details in the text, but every single religion on earth shares at thier core the same fundemental beliefs of right and wrong. Do unto others, and all that. Christians don't have a monopoly on that, my brother.
You ask how I know the difference between right and wrong? That's the question, and the seeking of the answer, that makes us human. You're right, laws change, but so does religion. Religion used to BE law, it still is in some places, but then, we had the age of reason, the enlightenment, the advent of science, etcetera, true investigations into the mysteries and paradoxes of the human spirit, and those explorations continue today. The only people I would consider truly morally suspect are the ones who have convinced themselves that they are above such speculation, that all their thinking on the matter has been done for them, thousands of years ago. The most effective way of preventing someone from reaching their destination is to convince them that they are already there.
"do what thou wilt"
Ha, just fucking with ya -
I don't dictate right and wrong based on my belief of what God would find right or wrong, rather I dictate my belief of right or wrong based on the idea that if every person in society committed that same action simultaneously, would it have a mutually beneficial outcome for everyone, or mutually destructive?
-
You just hit the nail on the head of the Boycotter's Fallacy. The fasle assumption is that theose easily offended speak for the whole of the group. But that's just not the case. While the group "Christians" certainly dominates this country demographically, you begin running into problems speaking for them. Sure, on PAPER there are a lot of Christians. But how many actually PRACTICE? How many will refuse to take in a work of art or entertainment for religious reasons?
I'm a Christian and that won't prevent me from watching a movie or reading a book. And I know more Christians that share my views on that than those that don't - which of course might be because of my intollerance of those sorts of people. There's nothing I love more than a good Christian. There's nothing I tolerate less than someone who believes being a good Christian means protecting everyone else so they can be as good a Christian as they are. I find Christains to be a lot like talkbackers. There are a LOT of GREAT talkbackers out there. Sadly, they're often shouted down by the few loud and pathetic douches that make the whole lot of you look bad. -
I'm not trying to say someone CAN'T act morally apart from taking a Christian (or any religious) viewpoint, I'm just curious as to how one comes up with truth or morality in a universe that is basically cosmic vomit.
-
"...are going to...," as if they aren't already. lol
Just for the record, I'm not saying I would refuse to see this or read the books, but I am saying that I will not pay money for the privilege of being told I'm wrong. If someone (particularly someone who's opinion on matters of entertainment) handed me the books and said, "You should read this, it's interesting," I would. -
You're absolutely right about that, and I'm sure any market research done by the distributor showed that while The Golden Compass may spark boycott from the Christian right, it was worth the risk to make the investment.At the end of the day, the only people that may end up losing out won't be the movie studios - they'll likely make a killing at the box office since they're filling in a demographic void between Narnias - it will be the boycotters that miss out. If this is as a good a movie as you say, it's a real shame that people who would have otherwise enjoyed the movie are skipping out on it simply because of some misconceptions.
-
I haven't read the books, so this is an honest question. As I understand it, the entire point of the books is that the heroes wind up finding out that someone called 'God' is behind all this, is a raving lunatic, and winds up dead. Or something similar. In short, as Pullman has said, it's the anti-Narnia, and sounds a bit ham-handed at that. If that's the entire climax to the trilogy, how exactly do you remove all anti-Christian imagery and plot points? Name him 'Bob' and have him be some other raving mad formerly omnipotent being rather than God? That's where the protests are from, I think. At least, that's where mine come from. Also, one other facet everyone miss: the 'don't encourage them' facet. Lord of the Rings was a massive success, and some of that came from Christians who wanted to support a film version of a set of books with ingrained Judeo-Christian values. Same with Narnia, which while good, was flawed and paled in comparison to the books. We wanted to tell Hollywood hey, give US some movies once in awhile, eh? Here, the reaction is the obvious. Man write books with expressed intent of being the anti-Narnia, whose entire plot is to bash 'the church' (and I haven't heard that he specifies Catholicism, either) and God. Well, just as we lent special support to films that featured our beliefs for the specific purpose of encouraging Hollywood to make more like them, the opposite is in effect here. Anyone can disagree, but we all know that all it takes is one big hit (Harry Potter anyone?) and along come the dozens of knockoffs, since Hollywood has no creativity anymore.
-
Wife's home and not feeling well, off to be the good husband...
-
I'm damned in triplicate!
(But I think I'm great at being Christian) -
Massa, a large part of it is Location Location Location. I grew up Catholic in the Northeast (Jersey, then Boston), and while I was surrounded by a lot more Catholics then, religion rarely seemed to enter the casual conversation.
Now I live in North Carolina, where I'm surrounded by Southern "Women Should Do What We Say" Baptists ... and I find it weird that the Catholics that are here (and they are a fast growing part of the religious segment of Carolina) are more religious than those up North. Maybe it's a 'persecution complex' thing that causes people to unite around their faith, and thus make them more strictly adhere to it? Or at least more susceptible to the demagogery of those like Donohue? -
Thanks for bringing some levity to this discussion. There's a lot of bullshit talk going on here though for just a so-so movie.
-
cosmic vomit? Are you saying that that's how you see it, or you think that's how I see it? If you think that's how I look at the cosmos, you couldn't be more wrong.
As an atheist, I consider it my moral duty to constantly question the facts and ideas, so called 'truths' and the behaviors that stem from them, from other people, and myself. In this way, I don't see any difference between the left and the right, for example, or believers and atheists, or even you and me. We're all conditioned and programmed by what we've experienced, the choices we've made, and what we believe. The interesting part is in the differences, but we're all essentially the same.
I believe the cosmos, and the fact that we exist, to be the ultimate miracle. I often wonder, considering the infinite chances that life wouldn't exist, say, if the big bang hadn't happened in the first place, or if, since it did, chemistry and physics had set up their laws along a slightly different alignment, or if gravity didn't work so specifically, so perfectly that the earth would form exactly the way it did and when it did, and then, the infintismal chance that there happened to be the exact right ingredients to cook up organic chemical combinations that would eventually lead to the primordial soup, that would eventually, impossibly, lead to actual evolving life-forms, that in all this time nothing went wrong, and then, all the millions, the billions upon billions of combinations of life, as astonishingly unlikey as they were to create the right circumstances for our intelligence to evolve, and then to form our various cultures and actually survive as a species, then, again, the imagine incalculable chances that throughout human existence each of our ancestors were able to survive long enough to eventually lead to our births, and even still, considering the cellular chances that out of each of those uncountable couplings the acutal sperm and eggs that were fertalized were the right ones to lead to us, being here, and having this conversation... it's just so cosmically, infinitely unlikely, and yet, here we are. When religious people tell me that If I'm an atheist it means that I don't believe in anything, I think about all that, and I shake my head. Of course, you just look at all that and say "God did it", and that's good enough for you. Oh well, like I said, different strokes. -
the short answer is that they didn't really, because it's not really a big part of the first book.
it's one of the many retarded features of the boycott that the first book has actually has very little of the stuff that would make the Catholic league mad. Pullman puts down some markers in the first book so that an adult can see fairly early on that a war against heaven is on the cards,but that's not clearly developed until the second book and almost all of the more obvious anti-organised religion stuff is in the third book. -
Dec 06, 2007 7:16:10 PM CST
Massawyrm: You Got Lots of Christian Talkbackers, Too
by kevinwillis.net
And some of 'em might go for a boycott of Golden Compass, but I think it's a jackass thing to do. Frankly, I think it's a jackass thing to do to water down the books for the movie(s), though the tedious preachifying could be, uh, edited for time if 2nd and 3rd movies appears.God rocks. I have faith in Jesus Christ. He hasn't asked me to boycott anything. And I think the guys doing the boycott--it's not really about the movie. They just need something to do with their lives.
-
The experience it, via education, thought, deduction and conscience, and then take credit for it. Sort of like a gardner planting a seed and then taking credit for the tree. What other explanation could their be?
-
And I would have hated that sort of comparison. ;)
-
Honestly am more worried about the religious fundamentalists in the US, then the Middle-East.
Why, cause you guys have a shite load of nukes.
-
'cause the kids always want what they can't have.
stupid christians, 5000 years later and they've still learnt nothing from the whole 'forbidden fruit' episode.
p.s. hail satan!
-
Must be the 30 years of atheism. And a thing for naked women. And ultra-violent movies. God bless Quentin Tarantino! That's why I'll talk about being a Christian, but I'm not trying to convince anybody. That's like trying to convince somebody to be gay. Either you're going to swing that way, or you aren't, and their ain't much I can do to convince otherwise. A little light witnessing, no pressure.
-
Of course your more woried about religious fundamentalists in the US, and you will be, until a jihadist beheads you for being an infidel. Then you won't have to worry about all those whacky American Christians!
-
Salvation comes not from works, but from grace alone. But different people hear different calls, and have different paths to walk. If that means boycotting a lame movie . . . uh, okay.
-
a billion or so muslims get along everyday without managing to behead a single infidel. put that in your pipe and stick it up your ass.
-
Tolkien time and time again said that faith came first in his life. Being Catholic is what he enjoyed most. He once said that "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision."(note he said this after the great work was finished, not before like Pullman). Therefore if you aren't catholic, perhaps you won't understand the full depth of the meaning behind the story. The books are not allegory, Tolkien has said time and time again that he "Hates Allegory" but rather that the work is "now" but in another state of consciousness and imagination. The spiritual battle if you will... so lets see just how catholic it is....
Elrond, wisest of the elves, lives in Rivendell, representing Rome and the Pope. A council is called to discuss how to deal with the burden of the ring..."sin" (there have been many councils called by popes for the same reason) Jesus had three properties... Priest Prophet and King otherwise known as Frodo, Gandalf and Aaragon. What sustains Frodo and Sam on their journey? Lembas bread..."food of the elves" The Eucharist..."food of the angels". Lady Galadriel, fairest lady elf...Mary, without sin, purest of all creation, helper of free men. The hobbits being like children just like christ says "those who are like children will enter the kingdom of heaven. Then of course the three descent into hell and ressurectio scenes. Gandalf after battling the Balrog>Gandalf white....Aragorn descent paths of the dead> Kingship on the other side...Frodo's descent into mordor> sailing into the west of undying lands ..on and on....Tolkien once experienced a holy vision while praying before the Blessed Sacrament. "I perceived or thought of the Light of God and in it suspended one small mote (or millions of motes to only one of which was my small mind directed), glittering white because of the individual ray from the Light which both held."
Tolkien also witnessed his guardian angel in the vision, not as a go-between but as the personalization of "God's very attention."
Tolkien could of easily of made a alternate world like CS Lewis, or a work which talked about God on every page, but in his genius he wrote a work that only mentions God once or twice, and describes it as a alternate state of being.....God bless that man... Long live Gondor -
Why did Bormir die...I certainly believe the fellowship to represnt bishops, lead by frodo gandalf and aragorn...so why did 1 out of six fall? Because man is imperfect and that goes for bishops also..i side with Bill Donahue and Catholic League.
-
I think that's a stretch, and one that Tolkien would be dubious about . . . not that his Catholicsm didn't inform it, just the allegories. But, maybe.
-
Didn't I tell you? It's those whacko Christians you really have to worry about, with the praying and the tithing and the food drives and the missionary work. Islam is a religion of peace, and everybody knows it, you bigot.
-
Imagine if they were as overly sensitive as some of the Fundamentalist Christians or Muslims. We would never hear the end of it.
-
"Here a beauties which pierce like swords or burn like cold iron." Allegory or no, who cannot identify with Gimli's request of a hair from Galadriel's head? Or his pining as they left Lothlorien. I believe I may have mentioned that Pullman isn't fit to shine Tolkien's shoes. You know it's true, beeyotches.
-
Those Global Warming fundies want to censor news stories and punish climatologist who blaspheme against the great doctrine of Man-Made Climate Change. Those are some thin-skinned religious whackos in that religion.
-
I'm a fumble-fingered typist.
-
yea, perhaps Tolkien would be weary of so many distinctions, but nonetheless, Tolkien did tell his son before he died, that when Gandalf says "I am the servant of the secret fire", he was referring to the Holy Spirit... great website by the way :)
-
I'm on my 2nd full read-through of Lord of the Rings right now. Just finishing Fellowship, will start on Two Towers tonight. Thanks for the kudos on the site (I'm a once-a-month blogger, I probably write more in TBs than I do on my own site).
-
Christ isn't offering anything. He's dead.
-
It's these Agnostics that are giving me the heebie-jeebies. Niggers can't agree on what they are or what they're about, crazy-ass Agnostic motherfuckers! I dread the coming Agnostic Holocaust with every fibre of my being!
-
even though I am not a Christian, because its a family holiday. (I am right with you Cap 'N Jack.) Besides, it is a representation of the birthday of Jesus the man, whom I respect too.
-
I go out, have a 5 star meal, lots of wine and come back and this thing is going strong (3.30am ish in Ireland, btw) Thoughts – 1. Sagart1994 really is a Catholic priest because Sagart is Irish for priest, good for you S1994. 2. Bill Donahue is an eternal douchbag who, if I see him debate Christopher Hitchins again and claim that ‘an Englishman has to let an Irishman speak first’ I will - 3. Explain to him why religious Americans should give thanks every day for the separation of church and state because that is the very thing that re-enforces their belief barmy religions and allows passionate talkbacks like this to exist. Then explain that most of most beautiful buildings in Dublin were built by the English. Then I’d give his fat Yank face a swift puck. Here in ‘holy Catholic Ireland’ our economic success has been directly the inverse of the popularity of Catholicism – we are now kicking their asses instead of being buggered in ours. 4. I would apologise to Sagart1994 and people like him, I don’t mean to insult you and your dedication to your belief, but I think many people (more than just bigmouths like me who openly admit it, even) are sick to the back teeth of moaning Catholics, crazy Muslims and their equally psychotic Evangelist brethren (don’t get me started on Israel/Palestine, they’re all fucking nuts) -- all of these factors are probably making being an honest man of faith with the best of intentions increasingly difficult. Wow, that was a nice wine. Spanish.
-
Jimmy Buffett.
-
that is taking place here, the one rock-solid belief I have is that human civilisation - get it? HUMAN - cannot progress or take the necessary quantum leap to ensure its long-term biological survival without some kind of compromise between the various faiths and ideologies that are most influential at this point in time. It's a survival issue to me; nothing more. As we move towards the middle half of the 21st century I am bothered that so many human beings still base their world-view on what is, essentially, superstition, or philosophical structures that aren't far removed from the medieval. I'm not being smug here. To my mind monotheism is dangerous as a philosophy or system of faith or whatever lovely thing you want to call it. It is too easily twisted to become exclusional; a standpoint for its believers to feel a sense of superiority over not just other men, but all sentient organisms, and then enact upon it. Whichever way you spin it, too often is comes down to an Us vs Them argument. That is its nature. I heard the Pope talking about how he wants to 'save me'. With all due respect to the Pontiff and his followers I'm just gonna have to say "Thanks but No Thanks!", or perhaps, "Go fuck yourself and your disgustingly patronising, paternalistic bullshit!" I don't want to be subjected to proselytising. I will never submit to blind faith, willingly or otherwise. I like living in a secular society. I like being able to follow my own philosophical path, or indeed, no path at all, if that is my choice. I am not inherently anti-religious. I am not, nor have I ever been afraid of Buddhism, for example, but rampant, fundamentalist, dogmatic monotheism scares the fuck out of me (as it does any other form of dogma). As it stands, I seriously doubt it is within the human mind to ever comprehend the forces that move the universe. More to the point I think that's the way it should be. We are marvellously intelligent, resourceful primates floating on a miniscule blue orb in some unknowable point of reference within an inconceivably vast cosmos. Nothing more than that really. We are still evolving, changing. All is change and subject to change. Nothing is set in stone. You want to subscribe and pander to myth or superstition you are not merely wasting my time, you are wasting collective human civilisation's time and, frankly, you are part of something that might just be a threat to mankind's ultimate existence on this or any other planet. Let it go. The cosmos is astonishing. The realities that we are just beginning to touch on through science are far more moving and mystical to me than any fairy tale conjured by man. Other than that I am extremely disappointed to see that GC's themes have been watered down. Those seeking to produce it as an entertainment and intending to profit from it should have respected the integrity of the message. I am a big believer in respecting the integrity of art, be it high or low or whatever. Anyway, that's my contribution. Regardless, this has been both an amusing and enlightening discussion so far.
-
Let's see if I can remember this. Ok, in the original outline, Boromir survives and plots against Aragorn while they travel to Minas Tirith. Tolkien changed his mind and killed him because ... damn, I don't remember (and I don't have HoME). But I'm pretty sure it had nothing to do with Bishops.
Maybe because he wanted to add Rohan (his beloved Mercians) to the mix, and couldn't do that with Boromir? -
As the pagan holiday appropriated to celebrate the unknown birthdate of my savior, Jesus Christ of Nazareth. And as a time to chill with the family. An watch It's a Wonderful Life, one of the most fucking awesome movies ever made.
-
Nothing more, or less, than that. And he fought with stout heart and great courage, and it is a sad day in Minas Tirith when Boromir's horn was cleaved.
-
You probably don’t find Buddhism threatening because Siddhārtha Gautama was a rich man who went out into the world, was shocked by poverty and disease and tried to do something about it – in the modern world, Buddhists try to live by that, while the insane and insanely rich and religious Americans and their Saudis bankrollers manage to ignore such trivialities, making them at their very core un-Christian, un-Muslim (sic?) and definitely non-human (and, as a PS, week, wimpish European governments allow this to continue, lest anyone think I’m ignoring that)
-
is one of the few movie lines men are allowed cry at
-
Perhaps an insult to PJ but I found most who hadn't even read the books anticpated the next film, the frustration was in knowing what was going to happen next, actually caring about the situation Frodo is in, and anticipating the fate of Merry and Pippin...the way the review describes, the next movies have to fill in something lacking in the first film, and the frustration is just that it is a bad ending and no one really cares what happens next
-
improvement in the extended edition of FOTR. Made it more poignant. Of course, the EE of Two Towers was so much better than the movie, I culled the non-EE DVDs from my collection.
-
to parent their children. Don't pay for the movie, don't buy the book, turn off the TV. Take personal responsibility. Stop whining at everyone else. And if you don’t have the balls to do any of those things for yourself as a parent, shut the fuck up and let your child become a crack whore already
-
If you are a true Christian it is presupposed you are a sinner, but to denounce a story by an author that is blatantly anti-Christian is not intolerance but simply fighting back, and standing up for sincerely held beliefs...it's not about boycotting but educating, especially since it is directed toward children, otherwise we are essentially standing up to a coward, in this Pullman, who has no problem watering down his message...I wonder with all the talk of people admitting they are bad Christians if he would admit to being a bad atheist...at the very least he doesn't care about the truth as long as he can make a buck...so some good comes from this film, it exposes Pullman for the fraud that he is, and that he holds no strong convictions...you call yourself a Christian but you fail to understand that there is no art without the original Artist...if a story is told that is blatantly and purposefully anti-God then it is not creative but destructive; not true art. I read in one of the posts that Pullman criticized Lewis and Tolkien's work for not asking the right questions, showing how badly he misses the point about a great story, why Tolkien's work is considered mythology and not mere fantasy...it's not about asking questions, it's not a work of non-fiction philsophy...it's not about asking but answering; it's about fulfilling our deepest desires in a way only a good story can; Tolkien and Lewis's answer is hope, Pullman's is that of despair
-
At least God thought so when he flooded the world. Last time I checked, he was always right
-
Damn Spanish wine
-
Monotheism is a philosophy that is 'exclusional'? So what philosophy do you promote that is 'inclusive', and what are we being forced to be included in? Your materialist philosophy that is just as dogmatic, if not more so? You can turn science into an idol to worship and put all your hopes in, but science admits to its own limits, and makes no statement about its potential. Science is extremely limited, based on a presupposition. Science itself is based on an assumption that cannot be scientifically proven. Let me repeat, science itself is based on an assumption that cannot be scientifically proven. It assumes that we live only in a material universe...why? because that's what science is, and its method of proof relies on physical evidence and data. Any existing 'theory of everything' has less physical evidence then the existenc of the Christian God.
-
in the recent I AM LEGEND trailer: "God didn't do this, we did" ...God is Just
-
There is no physical evidence for the existence of God. Ha, ha, wait, sorry, let ME repeat. There is NO physical evidence for the existence of God. If there were, you wouldn't need faith, because you'd have evidence, which you don't. A piece of dirt in my hand my or not 'actually' be real, on the Cartesian/The Matrix level, but it's real enough when I throw it in your face, and that’s all we’ve got
-
ben stein disagrees with you....
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playgroundvideo3.swf -
The movie sucks shit
-
Messages of hope, while Pullman's message is one of gazing into your own navel. Or finding the creator of the Universe in the mirror. While I think there is despair inherent in seeing yourself as the alpha and omega, the messages of most heresies, including ostensibly Christian heresies, is generally you are or can be God. You are your own God.
-
If you don't want to believe in God, then don't. You either will come to an epiphany that takes the scales from your eyes on the road to Damascus . . . or you won't. Real faith cannot be coerced.
-
But where is that manifest? In kindly neighbours, helping the sick, feeding the poor, or in preaching intolerance, blowing up buildings and buggering children? All of these are human, but often done in the name of, or least under the cover of God. So God is Just, but just for the nice things that happen? I sincerely believe your beliefs are sincere, I just don't see the logic in them. If God invented logic, and Man, created in his image, understands logic, then there must be a logic to God’s actions or they are illogical, therefore imperfect. If God did not create logic, or does not agree with it, he leans more in the direction of creation/destruction, and his view on life is way beyond our concepts of good, evil, justice, etc. If this so, then Christianity and other religions have to be completely re-thought, because the God they teach isn’t reflected in the universe around us. But hey, the ben stein video was funny
-
That would be the whole of Creation. I know, when I was an atheist, I hated answers like that, too. Turns out, there was a reason.
-
I'm always open to discussion on things. But I feel the door is open for discussion purely because of secular influence. I would highly doubt we'd be having such an open discussion under an oppressive Theocratic regime, which isn't as far removed from reality as people would like to think. I like the notion that I can dispute people's beliefs, or propose alternatives, or even just take the mickey a little bit, here, without the fear that I'm going to be spirited away in the middle of the night or burned at the stake for heresy. I wouldn't consider myself a materialist. In fact, I don't seek to define myself according to anything specific. We are here, and that's all I believe. I don't think it's for any particular 'ultimate purpose' other for what we are willing to define for ourselves. I would like to think that my children or ancestors would have the freedom to continue the debate rather than live in fear. I'm no idealist. I'm not pushing for some Utopia because I'm thoughtful enough to see that a flipside which oppresses others, regardless of their beliefs, is fundamentally compromised and unacceptable in and of itself. So, what then? Where are we going here? I for one cannot answer that. I've been wrestling with that question on a purely personal level. But I've been able to do it without Faith or God (singluar or plural). I think things have gone pretty swimmingly so far. I just want to be sure things stay that way.
-
(again, to be kind, cuz we're all friends here and I have to answer for this shit at the pearly gates -- boy am I in for it -- that was not an attack on your personal belief, just on your arguement)
-
In the first, I would argue that appointing oneself judge and jury on the logic of the actions of the Creator is mildly hubristic, at the least. And in the same manner that non-believers might find themselves wiser than God, or capable of defeating the very idea of God by their rhetoric, man believers often fancy themselves spokesperson's of God, or protectors of God, or the enlightened of God, or God's chosen people (although God does have a chosen people, they aren't even Christians: they're the Jews!). Although I would tend to believe that rather than God "leaning toward creation/destruction", God exists in eternity, outside of space and time as we understand them, and thus is not directly apprehended by man.
-
Because I thought it was stupid. It's actually not an argument in the sense that I would make one to try to convince you of something, because I don't see how I could make you see what is a matter of faith the way I do. When I turned to God, I was alone. Goofballs who had proselytized me for years almost certainly only delayed the process. They got in the way.
-
I would recommend to any atheist who was legitimately interested in what might attract a person to Christianity to read The Jefferson Bible. Thomas Jefferson, a Deist, created a personal Bible that redacted references to miracles and resurrection, and focused on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. I should say, I'm not a Biblical literalist, or a Creationist, so I find the Jefferson Bible quite good, rather than heretical for editing out "the magic tricks".
http://tinyurl.com/2yapjs
-
Every action has a equal opposite reaction. God can also be egalitarian: it rains on the righteous and unrighteous alike. And I need to shut up, cuz I'm proselytizing, and that ain't cool, dawg.
-
God created, well, everything. And he has destroyed some that creation at a whim. So, according to Christianity, he's not outside space and time, he is directly involved in it. That is, if you take the Bible literally. But a book written and published by men isn't proof of God's existence, just that men can write. To your second, that's more than fair enough, but you have to accept that yet another movie creating religious outrage, as well as the general, overt, in-your-face, indeed un-Christian religiosity prevalent at the moment is really pissing a lot of people, including me, off. But do ignore the goofballs like me. And if you're right and I'm wrong I will ask St. Peter if can, as we do in Ireland, buy you a pint before he sends me down below
-
1. the universe has always existed
2. the universe created itself
3. something outside the universe created the universe.
1 and 2 are wrong because of absurdity. Everything has a cause. 2nd law thermodynamics..wanna argue that time is circular??? doesnt matter...there is a cause for everthing in this finite universe. yet the cause for the universe itself is outsite the laws of the universe. thus the uncaysed cause. this cause must be eternal, infinite, really powerful and foremost a being? why a being? because it was not forced to create so how can something which is not a being chose to create...but still why create? the only self descriptor for the uncaused cause is I Am... sound familiar?? A being that is capable of choice is capable of thought, thus capable of knowing thus capable of being self aware.utterly self aware..Being self aware, the Uncaused Cause is selfless, it has everything it needs.. So once again.. Why create? Because it is selfless, by nature, it is the highest form of love, agape, charity, self sacrifice. Ever meet sumone who is enlightened, they are the most unselfish people. Agape is sacrifice. It is the Love of giving. With nothing to give it to besides Himself, we reach a rather strange position. God is wantless. He cannot desire as He is Immutable, Self-aware, etc. Yet part of God's nature, without Creating, remains, in a way, unfulfilled, for lack of a better word. God then Will create because of the very nature of the Love that God by definition and deduction must be.. Thomas once said "God loves man so much, it is as if man is god for God" -
1. the universe has always existed
2. the universe created itself
3. something outside the universe created the universe.
1 and 2 are wrong because of absurdity. Everything has a cause. 2nd law thermodynamics..wanna argue that time is circular??? doesnt matter...there is a cause for everthing in this finite universe. yet the cause for the universe itself is outsite the laws of the universe. thus the uncaysed cause. this cause must be eternal, infinite, really powerful and foremost a being? why a being? because it was not forced to create so how can something which is not a being chose to create...but still why create? the only self descriptor for the uncaused cause is I Am... sound familiar?? A being that is capable of choice is capable of thought, thus capable of knowing thus capable of being self aware.utterly self aware..Being self aware, the Uncaused Cause is selfless, it has everything it needs.. So once again.. Why create? Because it is selfless, by nature, it is the highest form of love, agape, charity, self sacrifice. Ever meet sumone who is enlightened, they are the most unselfish people. Agape is sacrifice. It is the Love of giving. With nothing to give it to besides Himself, we reach a rather strange position. God is wantless. He cannot desire as He is Immutable, Self-aware, etc. Yet part of God's nature, without Creating, remains, in a way, unfulfilled, for lack of a better word. God then Will create because of the very nature of the Love that God by definition and deduction must be.. Thomas once said "God loves man so much, it is as if man is god for God" -
And it outlawed various religions, made ownership of religious texts a crime . . . a secular influence alone does not insure open discussion. Not much would be up for a discussion under any oppressive non-democratic regime, secular, theocratic, or other. Practices such as burning at the stake for heresy, witch trials, and even the inquisition were not stopped by secular rationalists bringing enlightenment to backwards religious folks, but by devout believers who saw such practices as was they were: un-Christian, un-Biblical, and artifacts of the hubris and sinful nature of man. Most of the worst things done in the name of Christianity (and often of other belief systems) were ended by Christians, not secular humanists.
-
is not an absolute. There can be causes for things beyond the standard definition of a catalyst. This could be God (oooh, I’m sounding like an agnostic here) or it could be scientifically explainable. If the later, again, no need for God in the equation
-
From a piece of paper, does that mean you are 2-dimensional? That you don't exist in a 3rd dimension (space) or a 4th dimension (time)? You can create and destroy that line, yes, but you are much, much more than a line on a piece of paper. Besides, Buckaroo Banzai proved that there is a eighth dimension, so . . . the truth is obvious. I think most of the outrage is manufactured by a small minority. I don't think those folks are representative of most Christians or religious folks . . . though, even saying that, I believe for most their intentions are good. I just gotta speak for me, and I'm not about to boycott any movie with Daniel Craig in it.
-
Dec 07, 2007 12:05:44 AM CST
I Personally Don't Think There is Incontrovertible Evidence for
by kevinwillis.net
I think that's part of the deal. While apologetics may give some a certainty, I tend to think that's false, although perhaps I am wrong. But I think a large part of acceptance of a Creator, much more God and Christ specifically, is faith, and (at least, this is true in my case) a certain humility or humbleness that opens one to experience faith. Which is not a good explanation, and certainly wouldn't have convinced me of anything, except that I'm crackers.
-
With Daniel Craig in it. I may regret having watched it, but . . .
-
Dec 07, 2007 12:17:51 AM CST
Kevinwillis: No secular influence doesn't insure anything
by clancy van lustbader
Just gives it better odds. The irony of all this is that questioning within religion has led to the modern wave of rationalism outside of it. So have these 'good Christians' been 'less Christian' because they've started a process that has led to more and more people moving away from Christianity in the Western world, to embrace secularism? An interesting paradox. I believe we are in the days of the protracted death-spasm of Your faith and others; the Final Crusade as it were. The hotting up of fundamentalism all over the globe attests to that. I won't lie. I'll be glad to see it go, even though I know I won't actually be around to see it happen. But it will probably be replaced by something even more potentially dangerous. Such is human nature, not that I would declare or presume it to be 'sinful'. It's animal nature.
-
Should we still contract syphilis from making a comparison between the authors? Jeez, get off the damn caps lock.
-
Absolute knowledge may be unattainable. Be equally critical of belief and non-belief.
-
Einstein initially predicted black holes via mathematics before explaining the tangible implications to the public. Infinity can also be predicted via mathematics so why couldn't either life or space be without ends?
-
Dec 07, 2007 12:39:18 AM CST
carrotop361, your reasoning is seriously convoluted......
by kai_mah'gra
.......not so much because you believe in God. But just in the ways in which you reach that conclusion. On the one hand you want to use science ( the 2nd law of thermodynamics and causality) to explain the existence of God the necessity of an eternal creator in an finite universe, and then when it arbitrarily suits your thus far poorly constructed argument, you dismiss it offhand ( by somehow declaring God exempt from the principle of causality - either everything (and everybody) has a cause, or they don't. You don't get to eat both sides of the pizza on that one. If God, IS, or exists, by virtue and express reason of the laws of science and the universe that you've prescribed, then those same laws don't stop being applicable when turned around to that which they've begot. And herein lies the problem with trying to use science ( and by extension, logic) to prove the existence of God; sooner or later you're forced to retreat into the refuge of blind faith to shield you from the cold unbending scrutiny of scientific examination.
-
......is pointless; as would be clear to anyone with an ounce of brains. You can't use science (which ultimately requires proof) to prove or disprove the existence of God, because belief in God ( or a god) requires a little something called faith......that same thing which excludes the necessity of proof or evidence.
Logically if you were able to somehow "prove" that God exists, then there would be no need to 'believe' anymore, would there? Likewise with disproving the existence of God. Similarly you can't use religion to disprove science because you would need......um.....proof to do that wouldn't you? And what was that we said about proof and faith? They don't mix very well. Faith is the ultimate self-sealing argument, that makes it impossible to dissect intellectually. Hence the reason anyone arguing over faith, religion and the existence of God/validity of science; clearly hasn't thought any of it through very much. Silly argument argued by small minds. -
a world populated by atheists exclusively would be concurretly populated with Positive realists. Atheism will breed as many tyrants as religion, they will just have different motives- Chairman Mao- Red Russia - Kim Jung Il.
-
first of all, reagrding to your post to Antonius, all I have to say is: Word.
But, your last post to Kevin seems a little premature. I don't think we're witnessing the death-throes of monotheism at all. The reason so many people adhere to these belief systems speaks to a deeper, more resilient fact of our nature that won't be eradicated until something truly cataclysmic happens to us as a species; either some kind of spontaneous evolution, or a paradigm-shift the likes of which can scarcely be imagined (alien invasion??) basically, we're still skating the line between animal and divine, we're adolescents, and for that reason religion, and specifically monotheism, isn't going anywhere.
anecdotally, I believe that the reason we still wage war has a lot to do with the fact that from an evolutionary standpoint, humans aren't that different from other life-forms on Earth, meaning, we still operate according to a biological program that compells us to kill in order to survive. We've found contemporary, modern, sentient ways to carry out this programming, which is evident in the simple fact that we still murder eachother almost as an inevitable fact of existence with bombs and guns and terrorism. For millenia, humans were taught that you don't kill the people on this side of the river, you kill the people on that side of the river. Even with all our progress and advances, ultimately, we're still behaving like pack animals fighting over the water-hole or the hunting grounds. Right up until the middle of the last century, all human endeavor was arguably the result of intense violence. I say all this as a preable to my main point- which is that monotheism plays just as much of an intrinsic part to our base programming as the instinct to kill to survive does. We haven't evolved to a point yet where we don't need soldiers, or police anymore. We also haven't evolved to a point where we don't need the concept of a patriarchal God figure to justify our existence. That's not to say that we should all go blindly down the trodden path, quite the contrary. But to expect something as intrinsically human (at least so far) as a comfortable, pre-packaged answer to the greatest mystery to suddenly become irrelevant is asking to much of us. We are making progress, but its slow, really, really fucking slow, and for now, you and I are the weirdos. Maybe our progeny a thousand generations from now will initiate true change, but until then, we have to be satisfied with the knowledge that we are living proof that we're on that path, as well.
anyway, I'm super drunk right now, and I have to be up in 4 hours. I guess I'm not so evolved after all. -
Instead of thinking that we're miniscule microbes on an insignificant dust mote in space, I'd rather consider myself super-cool for flying through space with a fucking planet on my back.
goodnight. -
Regardless of your religious convictions (or lack of them), here's a bit of very empirical reality: this movie is gonna tank. The TV ads superimpose "critics' raves" over the non-action. But the "critics" are all one person: an anonymous movie geek on the E! Channel. A footnote about Pullman: this hack is fuming because he knows this movie will belly-up at the box office. As a result, his profits on the toy franchise will be zip (look for the action figures in the same bin as the Howard the Duck plush dolls). And he's already blaming the Catholics (even though the same theology's bishops recommended the movie). This guy is a tool. "I'm gonna wipe out Christianity," he grinned when the books debuted. And now he's sobbing because of not only a "backlash" but a legion of lousy reviews (and the forfeiture of sequels and a toy franchise). And, by the way, Bill Shatner is STILL crying on the airwaves that he was denied another crack at Kirk. He kinda implied that the film will crash n' die, commercially, without his presence. Another tool.
-
Anybody who thinks God cares about a fucking movie (that is not a snuff film) is out of their fucking skull. Don't go see it. Fine. Secretly go on Mr. Skin instead hypocrites.
-
I guess, in a heated issue, I got a little carried away there. What I meant by 'death-spasm' is that it's part of what is a very, very protracted process and one which won't come about in any small number of generations. And, yes, it is largely driven by biological programming. Along with racial separatism and intolerance, religious separatism and intolerance is just another way to wheedle out that which is 'other', and one of the most obvious ones at that. I fully understand that, for the average person, the fact that the vast cosmos does not give a royal, flying fuck about their existence or immediate trials and pains, instigates a deep-seated, primal terror at the very core of their being. I understand innately why they would seek a spiritual comfort and solace. Still I think it's something we will have to grow out of eventually. But not any time soon, I know. And, I'm not saying that any kind of governing structure that repudiates current models of faith is going to automatically bring about the Almighty Kingdom of Happy Happy Joy Joy-ness. A cursory examination of human history suggests... otherwise. Still, fear of what might be to come is no reason to cling to Yahweh's apron-strings. Yeah, we're all freaking beautiful, baby; all part of the great, universal, bukkake-show!! Anyway, I'm glad we can be drunk or foolish idiots without being, literally, stoned for it.
-
it's either valid or it isn't, isn't it?
-
Back again, to answer the question I was asked before bed which was about 50 posts ago to do with Morality in Atheists.
A good analogy of why religious belief does not equal good morals.
My father is an Atheist, my mother a Christian, I was brought up, I believe to have good moral standards on what was right and wrong, but in a way that allowed me to decide things for myself once I reached a certain age. My Father was a good man and a good father and is now a great Grandfather to my son.
My Wife’s father is a devout Catholic man as was her Mum and the rest of her Family. Her Father is to this day still a Violent alcoholic who lives on his own and thinks only of himself, he used to beat my Mother in Law regularly and even stabbed her once, his kids lived in fear of him and the mother ended up an alcoholic who told my Wife there was no Santa or Tooth Fairy at 5 years old because she was in a bad mood. I would never leave my Son with him in a million years and I refuse to even go to see him once in a while
So tell me who had the better moral standards? I know how someone chooses to use their Morals is not the fault of religion, but it does demonstrate my point that religion is not required for having correct Moral standards.
Another great example is my younger cousin, whom I get on great with, announced a few years ago that he was Gay and he introduced us all to his Partner.
Now if I were to follow the Moral guidelines set down by the church I would have to have nothing to do with my Cousin and believe he was being sinful.
My own Moral compass tells me that this is wrong to think like this, he is the same person that he always was and I know in my heart that it would be wrong to think differently of him because genetically he was born homosexual.
They say these days that it looks like it is a genetic difference that makes people homosexual, if that’s the case, then why did God create this in man and women and then disapprove of it in all his guidance to the world.
That does not make any sense to me
-
Why do you feel the need to shout at us all about your beliefs, we are having asensible discussion here mwith many viewpoints.
To come in here and shout at us all will not suddenly make us realise you are right and stop discussing this.
Accept that some peope have a different view to you on this, and presrnt your arguments in a better format to be listened to. -
I want to do a Cartman and freeze myself for 500 years and wake up to find that all you religious nutters are long dead and so is your f**kin' god. Problem is though, people being the dumb fucks that they are, they'll be fighting and arguing over something else just as f**kin' stupid as religion - "Praise Science". That is if those Mohammed f**kin muzzies don't get their hands on nukes and bring a big dose of jihad on all our asses first. F**kin religion. Worst. Idea. Ever.
-
A lot of people don't seem to get where organized religion came from.
Let us cast our minds back nine or ten thousand years ago. Tribes lived on the savannah, surrounded by predators. Everyone depended upon one another for survival; to steal, or to commit adultery, or to kill, could disturb the group dynamic, its harmony, and ultimately its survival. Therefore, people didn't need a code of ethics, because the only ethic was survival, and the only way to survive was with the group.
Fast forward a little bit. Mankind develops agriculture, carves little pockets of civilization for itself. Suddenly, group survival isn't paramount in everyone's mind.
But of course, civilization is fragile. Settlements could disintegrate easily without some measure of ethical control. But how do you convince people of something that isn't immediately obvious?
Enter the priests/shamans. Religious belief predates civilization. What the smart ones do is unify the two. Take the rules of survival, apply them to religious ideals, and ask the people to obey them.
Look at the Ten Commandments. Obe y only God (doing so ensures only one set of rules is followed). Obey your parents (maintains hierarchical control in the tribe). Don't lie. Don't kill. Don't commit adultery. Don't steal. Don't even think about it (i.e. covet).
Organized religion ends up becoming the barrier between civilization and wilderness. Now, it's arguable that this is not necessarily a good thing (but people who argue that usually give in to the 'noble savage' ideal). It's also arguable that something else could've been used besides religion; however, since isms and philosophy postdate civilization, it's hard to see how. A very strong monarch-figure could try to maintain control, but that's a tough model to maintain in perpetuity.
So religion wasn't a bad idea. It, like so many other ideas, has been misused to the detriment of others. -
JK. lol No one on earth can claim to know absolute truth therefore there must be an absolute truth, and that Truth is a being.
-
...so why look for physical evidence? It's like if someone told you there's an invisible being and you demanded to see it.
-
you'd at least want to be able to walk across it. Now, maybe there's a chance that the bridge really is there, but the more likely option is you'll fall into the river.
-
Okay, maybe that was too flippant a line for the conversation at hand. No, it's not MY view of the universe, I believe everything was created by God with/for a purpose. But, if there is no God, and everything came about by the "Big Bang", then yes, that's exactly what the universe is. Something, somewhere, somewhen exploded, spewing flotsam all about the universe.
Feel free to look here for a scientific approach to the questions of God, creation, the flood, etc http://tinyurl.com/46ptp You could try emailing them, they are sure to have better answers than I do. -
we're on the same page.
jsm1978- Years ago one of my best friends found out he was adopted. it shook him up, he started asking questions about what it mean to be an 'accidental person', and how this changed the way he looked at himself. I told him that my siblings and I were planned- 2 years apart, 3 kids, totally coreographed family. What's better? Am I 'supposed' to be here, whereas he isn't? Ultimately, it doesn't frigging matter. We're a part of nature, it doesn't matter how we got here. If the idea of a random universe scares you, I can't do anything about that, but if you honestly believe that faith in God makes the Cosmos a better place, and that without that faith it's somehow ugly, or diminished, then I feel sorry for you, and understanding someone like me is beyond your limited awareness. -
Good people tend to do good, Evil people tend to do evil but for a Good person to do evil, THAT takes Religion-Steven Weinberg
-
Did Moses not go into the mountains once the Hebrews starting doing whatever they pleased and not conforming to healthy society as they had just been freed from their slavery by the egyptians.
Is it logical to assume that Moses was away so long because he was carving these himself from his own thoughts on Morality, which I have no issue with any of them. I just dont buy that God spoke to Moses and told him what was what and actually made the stones himself, Thats like Tolkien saying that a light came down from the sky and told him what to write in LOTR, I would enjoy the story still, but I would think Tolkien was either lying or completely mad (A thought shared by many on Moses at the time I believe as he had been banished for years in the wilderness)
I think society would still have made laws and these would still be based around the same things because as someone said Laws and Morals are made by what will make the most successful community, it would not make sense to allow Murder and taking whatever you wanted when you want, I guarantee the first homosapien to have something valuable would have thought it wrong for his community to steal this from him.
Communism of course in a way tried to negate that aspect, but it simply did not work because those who had still wanted to keep what they had and those who did not wanted more, human nature, not guidance from religion...In my opinion anyway -
I dont see whats wrong with the big bang and cosmic flotsam theory.
I honestly think that most religious people do not like the idea of being alone, it makes you feel more important if you know some higher being put you here to do what you are doing.
The greatest pull of Christianity in the early days was the promise of eternal life, which some but not all religions offered at that time.
People wish to live forever, myself included and the thought of going to Heaven when you die is certainly an appealing one, but it still does not make logical sense to me
If God did create the Universe and this world solely for our purpose, Why did he wait billions of years to put us here, if he is omnipotent, then why not just create Earth circa early civilisation and do away with all the planet forming and dinosaurs etc.
I ahve alwasy also thoughy it a bit arrogant consideringt he six=ze of the Universe to say that we are the only interlligent life that has ever formed in any Galaxy anywhere else, odds are that this has happened elsewhere as weel, if we ever met, would that change everyones view on religion, especially if theirs was completely different or non existent (They would have to be far more evolved scientifically to ever reach us)
Also the pull of Pullmans books for me was the idea that instead of treating this world like a testing ground and assuming a better life is next we could all work together to make this World a paradise, the only thing preventing this is our own, prejudices and selfish behaviours and also differences in religious beliefs. -
In fact, the Pope jumped on the Big Band bandwagon long before many scientists did. It's considered the moment of creation in Catholic theology.
SKULL1138: Re: "Why did he wait billions of years to put us here, if he is omnipotent, then why not just create Earth circa early civilisation and do away with all the planet forming and dinosaurs etc. " My belief is that God isn't an idiot (which is why I hate Intelligent Design; it presumes God is an idiot and can't get it right the first time). With the creation/big bang, he set in motion a great sequence governed by laws of science and math that were present at said creation. Evolution itself is the desired goal of such divinity; the rise of a species or three that can perceive God. Granted, God did it the hard way ... but did he? A few simple equations + compulsion to survival + time = humanity. Pretty sharp, huh?
Also, I can't speak for other religions, but Catholicism allows for alien species. -
It is a reasonable argument, in the fact that scientists can still not say what caused the BB in first place, but its the one area that neither side can ever really convince the other of their view point.
I suppose perhaps one day we will discover either way (Not in our lifetime) until then we should all be allowed to express our own theories on this in any way we wish, unchallenged by others, which is the point of this whole talk back in the first place -
is that the theory about how the universe was created by Duke Ellington and Cab Calloway?
also, I can't speak for other religions, but devil worship allows for alien species, and talking polar bears.
also devils. -
Freud is a believer of a theory that Moses was an Egyptian of the Akhenaton cult (with their singular deity Aten) who fled Egypt (since the cult had been overthrown) with the Israelis ... when they got to the promised land they merged with a local volcano God 'Yahweh' as the one true God.
I have no idea how valid this theory is, to be honest. I just read Freud's book on it. -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaton#Moses_and_Akhenaten (remove spaces)
-
so there.
-
Damn, that was a fun typo. Good to see someone read the post
-
"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."
-
and also quite the fan of the crazy alchemy.
c.f. the goblins. -
..that you guys are arguing on an internet, forum...wait, let me rephrase that, an internet bathroom wall...(I think that's what AICN talkback boards are, most of the time) about religion vs. atheism and how it applies to movies.
If you guys are so ticked off at each other, why don't y'all agree to meet somewhere and have your throats at each other.
Do something about it, kill some religious zealots, kill some atheist fundamentalists (or Religiophobes). The world will be a better place for us sane people.
Besides, we have a shortage of natural resources, we need to decimate the population a bit... -
"I still expect religious people to either laugh at me or look at me like I'm a cancer patient when I tell them I'm atheist, but instead, they want to beat me up."
Great point. It's the same thing that drives people on these boards to threaten each other's lives over their taste in movies. They're idiots. -
Dec 07, 2007 12:13:57 PM CST
I have a hard time believing that people don't believe in God
by kloipy
Every thing in the world is so complex and intricate. Everything needs everything else in order to survive. I am a Christian, but I have a problem with the whole “religion” that’s been built around the actual faith. I just find it hard to believe that smart people can’t believe in even the idea of a creator. If there isn’t a God, than life is meaningless. Why would you work or do anything for that matter. If the is no purpose in life than why choose to follow anything. Why watch movies, play music, have sex, ect if it is all meaningless? I also believe that because the universe is so vast, that I’m sure there are other life-forms. Just because we don’t know about them and they aren’t in our Bible, doesn’t mean that God didn’t create them and have his own plan for them. God is beyond our comprehension. It’s like in the book of Job. Job questioned God and God came up out of a whirlwind and told Job to “gird your self up like a man”(I’m sure you can figure out what that means, and God gave Job distinct examples of why He is God. He asked Job questions that no man could answer. So what did Job say to God. Nothing. He covered his mouth with his hands. That is us. We are so miniscule in the spectrum of life and have no idea what is all around us. We can’t ever figure out a definitive answer. It’s just not possible. We were made in His image, but we can never be Him. Just remember that there is so much moving beneath our perception that it is foolish to believe that things just are for no reason.
-
Not a fundamentalist perspective, but a traditional one. The question shouldn't be why are we opposing this film, but why is there so much support for it on this site? What if a blatantly anti-Jewish film was released, would the same film be pushed by this site? One thing is clear, Christianity, and especially traditional Christianity represented by Lewis and Tolkien is the one religion left society is allowed to bash and persecute without any outrage by those who supposedly believe in tolerance. I find it interesting there is nothing on this site about the film Bella, a film with positive, pro-life message, yet a film by an author who vowed to destroy Christianity through these same stories is being heavily pushed by this site. But here's what will put things in perspective: the success of stories such as Lord of the Rings and Narnia, and the mediocrity if not outright failure of Pullman's films. If you don't understand God is Just, you don't understand God as Creator, the First Cause, and the our creation in His image, therefore one of our primary characteristics is free will, even the freedom to rebel against the one who created us. If you distance yourself fromt the Source of Life you logically approach death and destruction, and Justly...for the Christian, God is also a physical being, represented by Jesus Christ, God become man. He entered Creation, why? Because we are screwing up, destroying ourselves by rebelling against the Source, the First Cause. God loves us enough to create us and to continue to try to save us without taking away a primary characteristic of ours that makes us human: our freedom....the Big Bang has been confirmed by science, a theory first presented by a scientist who also happened to be a Catholic priest. The WMAP satellite that confirmed the Big Bang also discovered that only 4 percent of our universe is visible to science, so good luck with your FAITH in a universe that is only material. Puts a major hole in Hume's reasoning as well. I hope I don't have to quote Will Smith ever again.
-
The point of my post was not to endorse or oppose a boycott. Whether you agree with a boycott or not it is nonetheless a pure expression of First Amendment principles to try to convince other people that your views are correct. Freedom of speech imposes on the listener a responsibility to accept views you don't agree with and to celebrate their being voiced. This would apply to even the worst opinions, say racism. The Nazis should be allowed to march in Skokie. The Klansmen should be allowed to say whatever they want. The idea is that a responsible citizen will sift through the crap and come to a reasoned and informed decision about what is right. Some are offended by Ann Coulter, some by Arriana Huffington, the sane among us realize that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Me, personally, I don't belong to a political party because I don't like anyone dictating to me what I should believe. I prefer to take each issue individually, listen to all voices, and make my own decisions. As far as the movie goes, I'll probably watch it on cable, against my better judgment, like I did DaVinci Code, which was just a crappy movie. I'll say this for DaVinci Code, it didn't reject the central premise of the source material to avoid offending Christians. When I hear the director of Compass talking what I hear is, "We took everything out that would have offended anyone or made the movie even remotely interesting." I have had enough of CGI animals fighting for the time being, the genre having reached it height with the giant elephants in the Rings films.
-
It's refreshing to read an avowedly Christian post that also allows for a wider, more interesting view of the cosmos than is found in the Bible. There's a point to be made that a religion that can't adapt to an ever-changing world, and an ever-expanding field of knowledge about our world is doomed to wither and become irrelevant. That's what baffles me about the Intelligent Design or Creationism movements- they're just so astonishingly counter-intuitive, so stridently hostile to neutral, reasonable ways of thinking that are not in and of themselves anti-religious, that it reminds me of the Shakespeare line: "thou doth protest too much". There's something very competetive about it, as if the creationists believe that science is an adversary, like a visiting football team, horning in on turf that was already claimed by religion. How very macho. In fact, and I'm sure you understand this- science isn't actually a belief system or an ideology, it's a method, and one that is built on the premise that it can be wrong, often is wrong, and will never be complete. It's a process, whereas the creationist's version of Christianity is air-tight and hermetically sealed against even the most passive investigation. One thing that always amuses me about Creationists is their adopting of the empirical state of 'theory' as applied to Natural Selection. "Darwin's theory is just that- a theory", they announce, triumphantly, firmly believing that they have felled Goliath with his own stone. Well, Like I said, Science is a method, and in fact, all Science, with the exception of a fraction of the observable stuff and phenomena that make up our immediate surroundings, is "just a theory". That's how science works. The empirical process begins with an idea, opinion, or leap of intuition, or most often, an unexpected accident, then a hypothesis is formed. Once the hypothesis has been put through a series of tests it becomes a theory. At any point along this line if anything goes wrong, if the hypothesis falls apart under evidence, it never reaches the level of theory. A theory becomes justified when everything goes right, when all tests and evidence add up to what the theory posits, but something like evolution can't become fact because unless someone could sit down and observe the process over millions of years, and take notes, empirically speaking, it remains 'just a theory'. But a theory with almost 200 years of rigorous, mounting evidence and experimentation that supports it. With each and every field of scholarship in science that has developed since victorian times, the theory of evolution has been supported. Not once, not the slightest hint that there might be something wrong with it has ever shown up in all that time. So "Just a theory" actually means a great, great deal.
anywho, rant over, your post inspired me, I hope you don't get the impression that I was proselytising. I just kind of got carried away. To answer one of your questions, I often wonder why religious people expect atheists to be in a constant state of hopeless despair without God, many of my posts on this talkback have actually addressed the idea that atheism can be just as full of joy and wonder as any religious experience. -
the Truth doesn't have to 'adapt', and science is actually confirming the Christian view of Creation more and more. The Big Bang has been confirmed, the idea that the universe had a beginning. Scientific materialists are trying to cover themselves with string theories and multiple universes, but there is absolutely no scientific evidence for them, they are mere fantasies on the level of Pullman's story. Science can't go beyond its physical limits therefore it cannot go beyond the moment of Creation, the Big Bang. As far as intuition goes, its not Creationism that goes against intuition and common sense but evolution: the idea of an animal turning into man is extremely counter intuitive. The fact that it happened slowly doesn't make it seem any more plausible. The physical evidence for transitional forms still hasn't been produced in the abundance Darwin himself predicted, well short as a matter of fact. I think the 'just a theory'as applied to evolution is still justified, as opposed to the Big Bang, which has been confirmed through observation of CMB by the WMAP.
-
yeah, i hate those smart-ass folk who say we come descended from the monkeys!
that's not my culture'n heritage!
izzat your culture'n heritage? -
And also worried.
-
Sorry I didn’t get back to you earlier, but thanks for your words. And I agree with your points. See, a lot of the problems in religion spring from people arguing instead of actually living what the word preaches. If we would spend less time driving each other away and actually excepting each other for our differences, things could be a lot easier on us all. Just because I don’t agree with other peoples religious beliefs doesn’t make me hate them or feel the need to push my beliefs down their throats. You have to remember that someone who thinks differently than you feels as strongly about their faith as you do. If more Christians would start practicing what they preach they probably would have a better appearance then they do now. People misquote the Bible more than any film, book, or story every told. They like to pick and choose what they want and that defeats the whole purpose. Jesus told us to love each other no matter what and to forgive for everything. That’s the whole point. In fact the only time Jesus got mad was in Church because people were making a mockery of what the Church is supposed to be. We need to learn to be open-minded about what we each believe, because no matter what, what faith comes down to is a one on one experience. You will always see something completely different from the rest of the world, and your journey is your own. But just because you are a Christian, doesn’t mean that you can’t take good ideas from other religions and people of all cultures. The most important thing is to question and to never be so solid that even God can’t get through to you. Thanks again for your words.
-
Seriously getting loads of emails asking about this film. Your Daemon Ltd is nothing to do with the picture. Sorry to disappoint. Give us a shjout if you want tax returns done, or need to raise some film finance, but no, we can't make you a Daemon, or sell you toys so stop asking already! http://www.yourdaemon.com
-
I Samuel 17: 4, 8-9 (KJV)
-
Same goes for Atheists, we should practice what we preach as well. I know too many who feel superior to religious folk, which seems ridiculous to me. If someone acts like an asshole, they're an asshole. If someone is kind and thoughtful, they're kind and thoughtful, doesn't matter much what they believe or don't.
-
where more people used a little more than just 10% of their brain. hahaha
-
"No one on earth can claim to know absolute truth therefore there must be an absolute truth." That's like saying, "Nobody has seen a real unicorn, therefore there must be real unicorns." The "therefore" doesn't work. This is why I failed as a Christian; their logic does not resemble mine.
-
...before their conflict destroys the world!!!1! Seriously, It's a good, thoughtful and humorous article. Some profanities, but eh, what can you do.
http://tinyurl.com/33nep5 -
"...and understanding someone like me is beyond your limited awareness."
Here we were having a nice discussion and you had to go and make it a personal attack.
Could it not occur to you that maybe I DO understand? That I have looked, searched and questioned before coming to the conclusions and beliefs that I have? My questions are not because I don't understand how someone could hold a viewpoint, they are to either A.) get the person thinking about something they may not have before (and seeing as how the answers came fairly quickly, those people had) or B.) merely to get the viewpoint of another individual. -
It seems strange to me when Christians ask why an atheist would be moral, or insist that without religion even they themselves would go around eating women and raping babies. It's as if they see no benefits in morality; they're only moral because God says so. Well, why would a good God say "be good" unless there's already something good about being good? Look at how science works, regardless of whether or not God created the world. We come into the world without any knowledge. Then we go out and explore the world, learning about it through observation, experimentation, and logic. God didn't tell anybody that 2 + 2 equals 4, or that planets move in ellipses, or that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen atoms. People were stuck with figuring these things out for themselves. Humans are limited and fallible, so we'll never know everything, and there will always be disagreements. But, that doesn't mean that math and astronomy and chemistry are matters of mere opinion or speculation. We tend to reach mostly the same answers.Similarly, God didn't implant moral behavior into people's brains. That would turn us into robots without free will. We have to figure it out for ourselves, by observing the behavior of people around us, noticing cause and effect, and putting ourselves in other people's shoes.Again, because humans are limited and fallible, we'll never get morality completely right, and there will always be disagreements. But that doesn't mean morality is relative. Christians and atheists tend to have lots of morals in common....On the other hand, I personally feel that any religion which preaches "You can't get into Heaven by being a good person!" probably isn't going to do a very good job of making people moral.
-
That is one of the arguments that prominent creationists tell people NOT to use. But many people fall back onto it simply to help point out that it's not a "law", although "theory" is a more concrete term than many people think, equating it to hypothesis or guess.
-
Funny since someone brought up logic that the letter AIG responded to today deals with logic... http://tinyurl.com/2ahqxu
-
Only problem is that a unicorn , if found, would be a tangible definite being, God as Truth exist in the eternal NOW
-
Hey, maybe Ted Turner is right about something after all!
-
You BELIEVE "God as Truth exist[s] in the eternal NOW." If we've learned anything on this board, it's to express what you believe, not be closed-off enough to try to make definite statements about that which we may not understand.
-
tolkien: the nemesis is a satan figure.
pullman: the nemesis is...people who are religious...
tolkien drew from his religious background (and his life in general; the war, etc..) to create fantastic good/evil struggles that humanity fundamentally understands no matter what you claim to believe in.
Pullman preaches a vendetta and vilifies the people that disagree with him. pullman would have to work a lifetime to match tolkiens genius -
I really enjoyed the first movie and hope if more are made i don't get punched in the face by anti-religious propaganda.
-
Writers like Pullman with a philosophical agenda they want to advance usually end up with a bogged-down narrative.
Even as an atheist, I eventually found it grating to work through the "commercials" inserted into the novels.
Which is a shame, because Pullman is a good novelist and a not a bad story-teller.
He has poured scorn on Tolkien whose writing admittedly falls short of Pullman's idol, George Eliot, in terms of psychological insight and polish.
But Tolkien, despite being a committed Catholic, didn't prosletyse in his fiction. And for my money, Tolkien was a more gifted story-teller than Pullman, had a freakish insight into the resonance of language and was able to manage a complex narrative better than Pullman: even if his Hobbits conversed like stereotypical Edwardian schoolboys.
Anyway, this TB demonstrates again that there's limited tolerance for other people's personal beliefs about the world. Darwinism explains why it's better for large-brained Primates like us to be respectful of other points of view, even if they are insupportable in strict logic. -
Dec 08, 2007 2:18:28 AM CST
Why Christians Get Kicked In the Nuts and Jews Don't...
by micturatingbenjamin
Christians are the ones picketing homosexual soldiers' graves.Christians bellow and sound their mighty yawps about 'family values' and 'traditional values' while they fellate children or have children fellate them.Christians these days have forgotten the main lessons of the Brand New Covenant: Live and let Live...Judge Not...Fucking LOVING THE LEAST AMONG YOU AS YOU WOULD LOVE CHRIST!...How many of these blow dry evangelicals have homeless people living with them until they get on their feet? How many Christians go out of their way to give Pedro Anonymous a new house in Chile with their Church Funds while Mr. Smith has been evicted in December, and requires food and shelter...or a junkie with AIDS requires someone to bring him human contact by having someone to talk to...where's the MINISTRY in your Ministry?It's the hypocrisy of Christianity that makes people WANT to kick it in the nuts. Real Christians don't crow about Christianity, and remember lads and lasses: when Jeebus returns, according to the Mad Prophet, he's not going to recognize a great many of you as his followers. He can't wait to fucking cast you into the lake of fire.But here's the rub: Christians talk about God a lot...a FUCKING LOT, and go out of their way to broadcast their beliefs to everyone, and insist on changing others beliefs as evangelists. That is not for you, according to the Word. Evangelism is performed by the Holy Spirit speaking TRUTH to people who hear the Good News. Witness is telling people how the power of Christ's love has transformed your life or redeemed you in some way.I am no believer any more. Nothing would make me happier than to be able to say that I do buy into it, but there's little in the way of Witness going on in the modern Church.Read your Bibles, fine. But remember the real meanings behind Jesus casting out the men who turned the temple into a money lending organization or marketplace. His first act to piss off the authorities was to cast those guys out. Not setting fire to homosexuals, but putting out the hypocrites. He talks about the poor hundreds of times, but the gays...Not once.Finally, ask yourself truthfully, True Believer...in the odd chance there was a Jesus Christ and he came to you today saying 'Cast down your nets, and follow me. You want to walk with me? Give all you have to the poor.' Look around your home, and ask yourself would you even have the nerve to tell the guy you proclaim to believe in that you've been living for him?Yeah. Lying's a sin, too, isn't it? Fuck, that's why modern Christians get the fucking shaft from reasoning folks who are tired of the thought police coming after them.My last words are about Pullman. He's a bitter cynic. It's all over his writing, and if he'd come out of his own ass, he'd be a really excellent fiction writer. As it stands, I have to endure his vitriol to get to the whimsy. But, in this case it is worth it.
-
Dec 08, 2007 10:10:15 AM CST
"if it bothers you don't let your kids read the books"
by immortal_fish
"if it bothers you don't let your kids read the books"That's so very rich and typical of someone that has no children of their own.Wyrm, you can't just flatly forbid your kids from doing just about anything, because that only entices them even more to do the very thing you don't want them to do in the first place. On the other hand, do nothing at all and you run the risk of them stumbling upon the stuff you don't want them exposed to all on their own or by being introduced to it by their peers. Lastly, if you simply encourage against it and explain why, then at the very least you're still guilty of the same thing that you find William Donohue guilty of; i.e. encouraging against and imposing your personal beliefs upon your kids.Ultimately, you betray your ignorance on the subject. Parenting just isn't that simple. It's way more complex then forcing your kids to do or not to do something. In fact, parenting can be summed up by what you find so displeasing about William Donohue -- It's a lot of encouragement and explanation. Or, leadership of another stripe.It's easy for me to tell you that if you don't like what William Donohue says that you should change the channel. However, it's a different matter for you to tell me to forbid my kids from doing something. Children aren't easily switched off like a radio or television. Although I wish they were...And, yeah, I'm already aware that you're AICN's house conservative christian. ::eyeroll::BTW, as a 3rd party observer, I must say that all this progressive ire here at AICN and elsewhere at William Donohue and others of his ilk is mighty amusing. Back to Donohue specifically, here is a catholic that is spreading awareness about the source material this movie is based on and that's plenty enough to get the progressive crowd's panties in a collective bind. The threats, the accusations, the childish name calling, etc. Meanwhile, just last week, an entire country wanted to behead a woman because a bunch of other people's kids named a stuffed animal after their god. Elsewhere, a woman faces 200 lashes and jail time for having the temerity and audacity for being abducted and gang raped by several men. Her crime? She was being escorted in a vehicle by a man other than her father or husband. IMO, there's plenty of better targets for the haters of religion to focus on other than the critics of this Golden Compass film. At the very least, let's appreciate those who choose to engage in civil discourse by meeting them with same.
-
What saddens me is that when reading these books, just like when watching an episode of Heroes, I get the sense of great potential simmering and sometimes boiling under a sugar-coated surface. The Golden Compass was a BIG opportunity to accomplish more than excellent storytelling, but actually OPEN PEOPLE'S MINDS, and the filmmakers have completely missed the mark.
-
I've missed that gay guy with his gay snake. Test
-
"I just find it hard to believe that smart people can’t believe in even the idea of a creator. If there isn’t a God, than life is meaningless. Why would you work or do anything for that matter. If the is no purpose in life than why choose to follow anything. Why watch movies, play music, have sex, etc if it is all meaningless?"
I'd just like to point out that this is a quite typical misapprehension. Not believing in a deity/religeous belif system which sets out the exact purpose of mankind and the world, does not automatically mean that you see no point in existing. In fact, what's far more interesting is that someone with that opions, usually (but not always) think that without their religion they wouldn't feel there was meaning in life.
Myself, I'm not religious, possibly ignostic, but I've never felt that life is meaningless. Even if I did, I'd still watch movies, have sex, etc... BECAUSE, that would make the meaningless life more pleasant surely? It might even give it meaning. In a life without a grand scheme surely the point is simply to enjoy the journey?
please don't feel this is an attack or insult, this is actually coming largely off the back of my reading Prozac Nation, where the author expresses similar feelings of life having no point. -
shut up
krazykhristians -
I guess I should have thought a little bit more before just saying that people who don’t believe in a higher power will find that life is meaningless. I apologize if I offended anyone. I’m just asking a question and it appears that some folks have answered that. It is just a hard concept for me to grasp, that this life is the only life we get and then that’s it for all time. Especially when it is a world filled with so much hate, greed, and injustice. Just the idea that we spend more than half of our lives working just so we can keep a shelter over our heads and food on our table is, I guess, a very scary and sad thought to me. Some people can find comfort in the human existence and the ride of living. And yes, there are so many joys in life and you can do so much, I just have a hard time accepting that that is all there is to this. Life is so gigantic and insanely complex. But it all boils down to faith. You choose to believe what you want to believe. And more power to people who have faith and can stand up for what is important to them.
-
And what does the best facets of religion boil down to than faith in others? It is the belief that we can all strive to do good for the world, for others and lastly for ourselves. I don't need religion to teach me that. The world does. The human experience does. That's what makes life worth living. That you've affected people positively. I don't need the Eucharist to tell me that there is good in everybody. I don't need a prayer shawl to pay respect to what created the Earth and the conscience in all of us. I don't need Buddha to tell me that greed is bad and humility is good. I know that already. If you have religious beliefs, fantastic, but I am fine with my one life and doing the goddamn best I can in it. I do it for other people, not for the promise of a heaven.
-
I have a hard time grasping how life would be meaningful if there IS a higher power. Or at least, the Christian version of "higher power", which is what I was raised with. You know, the God who screams "YOU DESERVE ETERNAL DAMNATION!!!" at every fertilized egg in the womb. The Bible tells us that, way back when God created the universe, He predestined some people to Heaven, and others to Hell. Nothing you do can change your afterlife. It's predetermined. And if He's predetermined that you will go to Hell, you can be the most pious Christian in history, and still end up in Hell. He doesn't have to keep His own promise of salvation. He doesn't even have to be good or just. He's God, and He does what He wants. We're like ants to Him. We don't matter to Him. How does that give your life meaning?
I want to get into the movie business. I have a bit of talent for drawing and sculpture, and I would love to design creature effects for a living. But the Bible says "thou shalt not make any image of any living thing." In other words, my art is a sin. Then why give me the talent? What is the meaning or purpose of a talent that God would only damn me to Hell for? Or is my talent from Satan? These thoughts used to haunt me, kept me up at night. How can you Christians stand it? How can you see any meaning in your life, knowing that all of your joys, loves, personal tastes, all of the things that make you YOU, offend God infinitely? Why did He make you YOU, if you offend Him? Where is the meaning in that?
Also, I'm tired of hearing "you chose to believe what you want to believe". Beliefs are not choices, and they are not desires. People can only believe things they think are true, whether they want to or not. You can't flip your beliefs on and off like a lightswitch. As a Christian, you believe that many of your good friends who are not Christian will end up in Hell, while you go to Heaven, right? And that makes you sad, to the point of depression, doesn't it? Then why on earth have you "chosen" to believe it? I shudder to think that, when offered a choice between a world in which your friends roast in Hell while you enjoy Heaven, and a world in which everyone just peacefully ceases to exist, you CHOSE HELL FOR YOUR FRIENDS. Sorry if all this sounds offensive, but that's what Christianity means to me. I'm probably just missing the point, but nobody ever seems to give me helpful answers to these questions, so I guess I'll never get the point. -
In fact, all that crap you mention is the very reason why I think of myself as an agnostic. I hate labels, but at the end of the day, realize I must represent one crowd or other by default.Case in point, everything you wrote after your first paragraph. All that low level stuff about fire and brimstone. Maybe I'm rawng, but that's sounds like a bunch of self-imposed hommo doctrine which manifested itself at some point as time marched on that "god" could (and should) care less about. Consider the 10 commandments and the unwritten one. If you get those right, shouldn't that be sufficient? Would "god" really give a crap if I never missed a Sunday session or forgot to get ashes applied to my head that one year as long as I wasn't a complete dick to service folks and always tipped them?On the other hand, regarding your first paragraph, life is infinitely more meaningful if you consider the existence of a higher power, else there is nothing at stake. Again, back to those 10+1 commandments, there's nothing to stop you from being a complete and total dick toward others unless you knew there'd be hell to pay -- in a manner of speaking. Bill Maher, for example, to hear him wax on about his belief system (which it is even if he won't admit it is) I have no clue why he doesn't just run through the streets naked with a bazooka. The man is beholden to no one.Ultimately, don;t get caught up in the details. The surface is plenty enough to get you through the 80/20 rule.
-
Dec 10, 2007 9:39:17 PM CST
Samsquanch, Browncoat Jedi, Pullman, and mictoratingbenjamin an
by antoniusbloc
C.S. Lewis appropriately made the best description of arrogant atheists, such as Pullman and those mentioned above who view themselves as superior intellectuals over believers and as mictorben above describes,over the "weak" who use religion as a crutch: C.S. Lewis describes these so called intellectuals, "men without chests": "It is an outrage that they should be commonly spoken of as Intellectuals. This gives them a chance to say that he who attacks them attcks Intelligence. It is not so. They are not distinguished from other men by any unusual skill in finding truth .... It is not excess of thought but defect of fertile and generous emotion that marks them out. Their heads are no bigger than the ordinary: it is the atrophy of the chest beneath that makes them so.... As the king governs by his executive, so Reason in man must rule the mere appetites by means of the 'spirited element.' The head rules the belly through the chest - the seat as Alanus tells us, of Magnanimity, of emotions organized by trained habit into stable sentiments. The Chest - Magananimity - Sentiment - these are the indespensable liaison officers between cerebral man and visceral man. It may even be said that it is by this middle element that man is man: for by his intellect he is mere spirit and by his appetite mere animal." Lewis shows the influence of G.K. Chesterton who emphasized complete thinking, and how that is only represented by traditional Christianity, and how leaving God out is incomplete thinking, and defies common sense. According to Chesterton: "...Man is to be studied in his whole manhood...man is not a man without his body, just as he is not a man without his soul. A corpse is not a man; but also a ghost is not a man." The atheist has a dualistic approach to knowledge, dividing the physical from the spiritual. Their reason is based only on the material, and the appetite. They fail to use the reason of the heart, and fail to see that the heart has reasons. They are men without chests.
-
"On the other hand, regarding your first paragraph, life is infinitely more meaningful if you consider the existence of a higher power, else there is nothing at stake."
Please bring your attention to my previous post. I believe that everything is at stake. -
Lenny, I appreciate your ideas. I on one hand think it's hard to have faith in others when we can't always depend upon ourselves. But I see where you are coming from, and it's something I struggle with as a Christian because I have a hard time with the way people treat each other. Thanks though. Billy Goat: I think you might be misunderstanding Christianity. Yes, God does have chosen people, the Jewish. And yes, they are supposed to follow a very strict guidline in what to do to please God. That is basically what the old testemant is. A living guide to the jews. However, that is what Christ was for. To allow anyone into Heaven that chooses to accept Christ into their heart. The rest of us are the Gentiles. We don't have the same laws for us. We are pretty much free range. However, we are still supposed to try and live a better life. Without judgement, lies, hate, and to truly and honestly repent for our sins. After Christ it says that there is only one unforgivable sin and that is to blasphamize against the Holy Spirit. Other than that God will forgive you of anything if you truly repent of it. To answer your question about my friends going to hell. Yes, it's a very upsetting thought, how could it not be. But that is not up for me to understand. I would love it if everyone could be absolved of sin and live in paradise, but I didn't create the world and I couldn't possibly understand what God wants. I'm not saying it's wrong to question, just that I won't know God's plan fully. It says not to judge your brother before pulling the needle out our your own eye, so how do I know that God wont forgive on judgement day? Who knows? No one does. And that is part of the magic and mystery of life
-
People put to much stock in science. Just over a hundred years ago scientists thought that bad spirits lived in the brain and headahes were caused by evil so they would drain the fluid out of your head. Just think what scientist will think of us primatives in a hundred years
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 383 total posts 380 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 111 total posts 111 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 75 total posts 73 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 71 total posts 68 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 77 total posts 55 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 54 total posts 48 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 165 total posts 41 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 41 total posts 41 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 500 total posts 35 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 28 total posts 28 posts