The golden compass

TV, Movies, Sports...you can find it all in here.

Postby mechana2015 » Tue Nov 27, 2007 10:16 am

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2007/11/would_the_golden_compass_be.html

I just thought this was an interesting contrast between what the film company wants the movie to be and what pullman thinks it should be, and the first difinitive statement on the differences between the books and the movie.
Image

My Deviantart
"MOES. I can has Sane Sig now?"
User avatar
mechana2015
 
Posts: 5025
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:33 am
Location: Orange County

Postby Nate » Tue Nov 27, 2007 11:23 am

Interesting article. I liked this quote:

"After a rocky start, the studios now seem to view the Christian market as it would a difficult girlfriend: elusive and hard to please; ultimately, you keep your distance but still take pains not to irritate her."

But I think the most telling quote is at the end.

The Golden Compass should not offend, or be controversial at all, Weitz swears. It will certainly not, heaven forbid, offer any critique of religion. “The movie’s first job is to beguile the audience for a couple of hours,” he says, and that much it can promise to do.

So it seems to me the whole argument over the movie is simply guilt by association.
Image

Ezekiel 23:20
User avatar
Nate
 
Posts: 10725
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: Oh right, like anyone actually cares.

Postby uc pseudonym » Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:36 pm

Nate wrote:None of us have seen the movie. How do we know the atheist undertones are even still prevalent in it?

First, I want to make it clear that I don't support judging the movie prematurely. However, based on the preview I saw, I think that I can safely assume some elements of this are present. The "that is heresy / that is the truth" line I quoted earlier is fairly explicitly anti-religious (and consistent with the philosophy I feel was in Pullman's books). One would imagine these elements will be played down, but I sincerely doubt they will be gone.

Whether that is a major cause for concern is another matter entirely. I won't see it because I generally don't watch movies, not for religious reasons.
User avatar
uc pseudonym
 
Posts: 15506
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 4:00 am
Location: Tanzania

Postby bakura_fan » Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:27 pm

I believe that no matter how dumbed down the movie will be, if they get enough ticket sales and decide to make the other books into movies, those movies will still have the same end result as the books. the death of "god". The reason I started this thread was just to get the message out mainly about the books. I do not fear anything about this movie. I'm sure it was done tastefully. I only worry about potential future movies and the children who will like the movie and then want the books.
:angel:

[color=DeepSkyBlue] "He lives in you. He lives in me. [/color]He watches over everything we see.
Into the water. Into the truth. [color=Yellow][color=DeepSkyBlue]In your reflection, He lives in you." - He lives in you chorus[/color][/color]
"Slow, love, slow. Time's so fast. Now goes quickly, see Now it's past!
Soon will come, Soon will last. Wait." [color=Yellow]- Wait (sweeney todd) [/color]

[align=center]My art page.

[align=center]Married to swordguy
:hug:



[/align]
[/align]
User avatar
bakura_fan
 
Posts: 1289
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: @ the mother-in-laws. ^_^

Postby Technomancer » Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:32 pm

Sorry to keep mentioning those polar bears, but man, they're just too awesome.


They are aren't they? Personally, I will be seeing the movie when it comes out for the simple fact that the book told a rattling good story. That's it for me really. Yes, this one like many others is told from a particular viewpoint, and it may be good to go in being aware of this. However, the mere fact that the story isn't told from a pro-Christian or even a neutral viewpoint is no reason not to see the film. Good fiction ought to be more than a mirror that reflects only our own beliefs about the world. Instead, it should try to make us see the world through the eyes of others, even if those others are not ones we'll agree with.

Like Jurassic Park they may have dumbed down the atheism to the point where it's just "LOOK POLAR BEARS WEARING PLATE MAIL."


I don't know, the original author was plenty dumb already. :mutter: Don't get me started on his meaningless jibber-jabber on chaos theory...
The scientific method," Thomas Henry Huxley once wrote, "is nothing but the normal working of the human mind." That is to say, when the mind is working; that is to say further, when it is engaged in corrrecting its mistakes. Taking this point of view, we may conclude that science is not physics, biology, or chemistry—is not even a "subject"—but a moral imperative drawn from a larger narrative whose purpose is to give perspective, balance, and humility to learning.

Neil Postman
(The End of Education)

Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge

Isaac Aasimov
User avatar
Technomancer
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 11:47 am
Location: Tralfamadore

Postby Etoh*the*Greato » Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:35 pm

*scratches head* Granted I've not read the book since probably fifth grade, but I don't remember much atheism in Jurassic Park, excluding evolution theory.

Also, Technomancer: Regarding seeing the movie on the merits of its story and reflections of our worldview? Agreed. Not sure I'll see the movie, but totally agreed.
"I do not feel obliged to believe that that same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo Galilei
ImageImageImageImage
Image
Image
User avatar
Etoh*the*Greato
 
Posts: 2618
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:46 pm
Location: Missouri

Postby Alexander » Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:11 pm

To Nate: Excluding the fact that I'm not immediately impressed by movies that have polar bears bears in armor, I have to agree with you. XD

But that brings up another issue for myself. I never watch, or consider, the film version of a story to be better then the book. And ironically, one of the reasons I don't do this has to do with the fact that the film version usually waters down one or two themes from the original story.

Regardless, it's still a strong and good point. But I'll still remain careful of this whole situation, and for myself, continue to ignore them for my ancient philosophy. XD
<img src="patent pending.jpg"></p>
<p>Signature in progress</p>
User avatar
Alexander
 
Posts: 877
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 12:42 am
Location: Sometimes I wish I honestly knew.

Postby termyt » Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:43 am

There is some truth to not judging a movie before you see it, but don't get carried away.

The intent of the book’s author can and should affect whether or not you would want to see any movie. Knowing the author's intent is a valid reason to dismiss any book or movie.

Or, should we say, that if the wolf's costume is good enough, we should accept him as a sheep even though we know him to be a wolf?

I would not say a movie is bad (as in poor quality) unless I have it on good authority that it is bad. The quality of the movie, however, is not the focus of the discussion.

Similarly, I would not lay down blanket assumption of a movie’s content, either. However, the evidence is mounting, and even though I have not read the books myself, I consider some of the folks here to be trustworthy enough to take their word, that this movie is based in an attempt to discredit Christianity. This movie itself does little in that regard, perhaps, but the books together have this as an obvious aim. I don't think I am “judging the book by its cover” here to say that this is a movie most Christians will not want to support - or at the very least, they will not want to support their young children digging deeper into the author's works.
[color="Red"]Please visit Love146.org[/color]
A member of the Society of Hatted Members
Image
If your pedantic about grammar, its unlikely that you'll copy and paste this into your sig, to.
User avatar
termyt
 
Posts: 4289
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: oHIo

Postby Sakura15 » Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:27 am

This really makes me sad, because from the trailer it looks like a really cool movie. I still might see the movie but I definitely won't be reading the books, thanks for the heads up guys. I had heard that it was about "Killing God" but I wondered if it was maybe just people blowing things out of proportion again..if only :P

Let me put it this way. They marked down a movie about Jesus's life because young Jesus wandered away from His parents to go to the temple, if you all remember. They said it could inspire rebellion in children.

YEAH. Wrap your head around THAT one.


That is utterly ridiculous..Did they NOT read the bible? :P
[color="SeaGreen"]
"For I am the LORD, your God, who takes hold of your right hand and says to you, Do not fear; I will help you." -Isaiah 41:13
[/color]

[font="Georgia"]
Sakura's Deviantart
[/font]
[color="DeepSkyBlue"]
For what do I have
If I don't have You, Jesus?
What in this life
Could mean any more?- Starfield
[/color]
User avatar
Sakura15
 
Posts: 2206
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:59 am
Location: Somewhere out there! XD

Postby uc pseudonym » Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:46 pm

Sakura15 wrote:That is utterly ridiculous..Did they NOT read the bible?

More Christians than you would think draw guidance for their daily life from non-biblical sources (and I don't mean Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox). In this case, I think they operate by an ultra-conservative set of ethics without realizing there is discontinuity in their beliefs.

Technomancer wrote:I don't know, the original author was plenty dumb already. Don't get me started on his meaningless jibber-jabber on chaos theory...

While I don't know enough about chaos theory to participate on such a topic too intelligently, you have me curious. What kind of things was he saying? I don't really have an opinion about Pullman outside of his books and a few interviews.
User avatar
uc pseudonym
 
Posts: 15506
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 4:00 am
Location: Tanzania

Postby Nate » Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:45 pm

termyt wrote:The intent of the book’s author can and should affect whether or not you would want to see any movie. Knowing the author's intent is a valid reason to dismiss any book or movie.

I disagree]I, Robot.[/i] The book is a collection of short stories by Asimov revolving around robots and morality. There was no action whatsoever in it, it was all about character development and robotics.

What was the movie like? It starred the Fresh Prince running around fighting killer robots. This would be the part where I point out that Asimov absolutely hated the idea of having robots as bad guys in his stories.

The movie resembles the books in name only, and by use of the Three Laws of Robotics. Anyone judging the movie by the book would be making a huge error as the two are almost completely different.

Is this movie, The Golden Compass that different from the book it's based on? Probably not. We haven't seen the movie yet to verify it though.

In the end, what am I saying? Well, first. I'm NOT saying it's a bad idea to have some reservations about a movie based on the book. The books are obviously written from a very atheistic point of view, and Christians are right to be cautious about them. In fact, I'd go so far as to say we NEED to be suspicious. But ultimately in the end, while the book is a good starting point for judging a movie's value, it's not the only standard, and the movie needs to be judged on its own merits, away from the book.

In the Narnia books, Aslan says to Peter (I think) that there is a great King over the sea that rules all, and that he is that king's son. In the movie this line is changed to "a great power watches over all of us." This completely removes a lot of the Christian themes Lewis had set up in his book. Again, the makers of the movie have changed the original intent of the author.
at the very least, they will not want to support their young children digging deeper into the author's works.

Now that I completely agree with.
While I don't know enough about chaos theory to participate on such a topic too intelligently, you have me curious. What kind of things was he saying? I don't really have an opinion about Pullman outside of his books and a few interviews.

I think Technomancer was talking about Crichton, not Pullman in that statement. I don't know that much about chaos theory either, and it's been years since I've read Jurassic Park, so I'll let him respond to the question itself.
Image

Ezekiel 23:20
User avatar
Nate
 
Posts: 10725
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: Oh right, like anyone actually cares.

Postby Technomancer » Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:19 am

Yeah, I should've said that it was Crighton, and not Pullman. Sorry for the confusion.

While I don't know enough about chaos theory to participate on such a topic too intelligently, you have me curious. What kind of things was he saying? I don't really have an opinion about Pullman outside of his books and a few interviews.



It's been quite a while since I've read the book. Essentially, his argument was that the park was a complex system of interacting parts and that these parts would interact in unpredictable ways, thus leading to a potentially catastrophic failure. The trouble with this idea is that it really doesn't have anything to do with chaos theory at all, nor does it even rule out the existence of some kind of equilibrium as the author implied. The only thing that chaos theory actually lent to the book was some fashionable buzzwords, and the appearance of a character who could be perceived by the readers as some sort of scientific non-conformist.
The scientific method," Thomas Henry Huxley once wrote, "is nothing but the normal working of the human mind." That is to say, when the mind is working; that is to say further, when it is engaged in corrrecting its mistakes. Taking this point of view, we may conclude that science is not physics, biology, or chemistry—is not even a "subject"—but a moral imperative drawn from a larger narrative whose purpose is to give perspective, balance, and humility to learning.

Neil Postman
(The End of Education)

Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge

Isaac Aasimov
User avatar
Technomancer
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 11:47 am
Location: Tralfamadore

Postby Sakura15 » Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:46 am

In the end, what am I saying? Well, first. I'm NOT saying it's a bad idea to have some reservations about a movie based on the book. The books are obviously written from a very atheistic point of view, and Christians are right to be cautious about them. In fact, I'd go so far as to say we NEED to be suspicious. But ultimately in the end, while the book is a good starting point for judging a movie's value, it's not the only standard, and the movie needs to be judged on its own merits, away from the book.


*nods* I agree, they normally do change a lot in movies, this is why I still plan on seeing it..just so I can judge it for what it is, not by the books.
[color="SeaGreen"]
"For I am the LORD, your God, who takes hold of your right hand and says to you, Do not fear; I will help you." -Isaiah 41:13
[/color]

[font="Georgia"]
Sakura's Deviantart
[/font]
[color="DeepSkyBlue"]
For what do I have
If I don't have You, Jesus?
What in this life
Could mean any more?- Starfield
[/color]
User avatar
Sakura15
 
Posts: 2206
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:59 am
Location: Somewhere out there! XD

Postby Kkun » Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:19 am

Technomancer wrote:Yeah, I should've said that it was Crighton, and not Pullman. Sorry for the confusion.




It's been quite a while since I've read the book. Essentially, his argument was that the park was a complex system of interacting parts and that these parts would interact in unpredictable ways, thus leading to a potentially catastrophic failure. The trouble with this idea is that it really doesn't have anything to do with chaos theory at all, nor does it even rule out the existence of some kind of equilibrium as the author implied. The only thing that chaos theory actually lent to the book was some fashionable buzzwords, and the appearance of a character who could be perceived by the readers as some sort of scientific non-conformist.


I'd not really thought of that way since I just kind of read the book for the plot (pseudoscience in fiction has never bothered me all that much...). If I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly, Crichton used the phrase "chaos theory" as a way to express the idea that there are many different paths that events can take? It's been several years since I've read Jurassic Park, but I never stopped to think about Ian Malcolm's version of "chaos theory" in that light. Crichton just wanted to make Ian Malcolm punk rock. As far as the plot goes, though, I guess he succeeded.

Anyway, back to discussing the Golden Compasss.
I'm a shoe-in for hater of the year.
User avatar
Kkun
 
Posts: 3604
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 9:00 am
Location: The Player Hater's Ball.

Postby termyt » Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:29 pm

In principle, I see your point and I'm in relative agreement, Nate. The other side of this coin is, though, we are not simply talking about watching or not watching a movie as though it had no effect on anything else. Nothing is done in a vacuum these days.

A huge box-office success for this movie will certainly result in book sales. Books that we seem to agree that are targeted at children and we’d rather not have children read without parental interaction to properly place the elements in the story with actual truth. This is the number one reason that I, as an author, would not fret about big changes being made to my book for the movie. Seeing a successful movie will encourage folks to read my books and then get the story I was trying to tell in the first place.

With the stated goal of the author being to downplay Christianity, I think it is not unreasonable to decide not to watch the movie whether any of those elements remain or not simply because one does not feel like filling the coffers of one who has declared himself your enemy.
[color="Red"]Please visit Love146.org[/color]
A member of the Society of Hatted Members
Image
If your pedantic about grammar, its unlikely that you'll copy and paste this into your sig, to.
User avatar
termyt
 
Posts: 4289
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: oHIo

Postby the_wolfs_howl » Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:55 pm

The main reason I'm not going to be watching the movie is because I didn't think it really looked like that great of a movie to begin with. I'm extremely wary of every book-to-movie adaptation, because they're usually unbelievably horrible, and this one just made everything look way too colorful, cartoony, and blatantly CG for my tastes. I don't think people necessarily need to not watch the movie, seeing how much anti-Christian stuff was (reportedly) taken out. I'll be interested to hear what people have to say when they see it.

And the His Dark Materials trilogy is now on my very short list of Never Let Anyone Read These Books If At All Possible.
You can find out things about the past that you never knew. And from what you've learned, you may see some things differently in the present. You're the one that changes. Not the past.
- Ellone, Final Fantasy VIII

Image

"There's a difference between maliciously offending somebody - on purpose - and somebody being offended by...truth. If you're offended by the truth, that's your problem. I have no obligation to not offend you if I'm speaking the truth. The truth is supposed to offend you; that's how you know you don't got it."
- Brad Stine
User avatar
the_wolfs_howl
 
Posts: 3273
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:26 pm
Location: Not Paradise...yet

Postby uc pseudonym » Thu Nov 29, 2007 2:12 pm

I do hope that those who see the film will give us their thoughts here. This discussion has made me rather curious.

Nate wrote:I think Technomancer was talking about Crichton, not Pullman in that statement. I don't know that much about chaos theory either, and it's been years since I've read Jurassic Park, so I'll let him respond to the question itself.

Ah, I see the ambiguity there.

Technomancer wrote:It's been quite a while since I've read the book. Essentially, his argument was that the park was a complex system of interacting parts and that these parts would interact in unpredictable ways, thus leading to a potentially catastrophic failure. The trouble with this idea is that it really doesn't have anything to do with chaos theory at all, nor does it even rule out the existence of some kind of equilibrium as the author implied. The only thing that chaos theory actually lent to the book was some fashionable buzzwords, and the appearance of a character who could be perceived by the readers as some sort of scientific non-conformist.

That does sound dodgy, even to my ears. I actually haven't ever read the original Jurassic Park, so that explains why I didn't make the connection
User avatar
uc pseudonym
 
Posts: 15506
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 4:00 am
Location: Tanzania

Postby Kuro-Mizu » Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:56 pm

About pluggedinonline.

They are only their to inform. They tell ALL the story elements that might POSSIBLY be offensive and then leave the final decision up to you. I think they are a great resource. Obviously I read other reviews but I always check pluggedin first to make sure their isn't to much sexual or violent content.

As for the book and movie.

I'm reading the book and going to the movie. I have about 5 friends who are devout christians and I trust. They all COMPLETELY missed the anti christian themes. Even in the last book. Like me they read fantasy as just that... a fantasy. Its not real. So even if the author wrote it with the intention of bashing christianity they didn't see it that way because they knew it wasn't real.

Overall I think the movie looks sweet... I actually can't wait to see it!
CAA does the FACE!
ImageImageImage
Formerly Known As Vernhal
//My Devart\\//My Sheezyart\\
User avatar
Kuro-Mizu
 
Posts: 578
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 5:28 pm
Location: Near insanity!

Postby Arnobius » Thu Nov 29, 2007 5:39 pm

Technomancer wrote:Yeah, I should've said that it was Crighton, and not Pullman. Sorry for the confusion.




It's been quite a while since I've read the book. Essentially, his argument was that the park was a complex system of interacting parts and that these parts would interact in unpredictable ways, thus leading to a potentially catastrophic failure. The trouble with this idea is that it really doesn't have anything to do with chaos theory at all, nor does it even rule out the existence of some kind of equilibrium as the author implied. The only thing that chaos theory actually lent to the book was some fashionable buzzwords, and the appearance of a character who could be perceived by the readers as some sort of scientific non-conformist.

Well, as I recall, the use of chaos theory was supposed to be using math to predict non linear actions.

Of course I thought it very farfetched that the book would use it to predict things in a specific fashion... it made out chaos theory to be almost fortune telling.

Of course Lost World was worse... where the reasoning they used there meant the things happening in "Jurassic Park" simply could not have happened as they did.

Getting back to Golden Compass, my thoughts are, whether or not there are polar bears in armor, the key thing is what is the message of the book and how much of it filtered into the movie. If someone made a movie out of The Turner Diaries, would it be reasonable to ask the people to ignore the racist origins and content of the book even if the movies downplayed them? I think that when an intolerance is being displayed with these books, Christian concern is not unreasonable when it comes to asking what sort of influence the message will have.

With The Da Vinci Code, the sentiment of the supporters was to represent the opposition as overreaction to a movie, when in fact the opposition was to the anti-Christian claim of Dan Brown that the beliefs of Christianity and of Christ were a lie created by the Catholic Church to suppress paganism and gnosticism, and the subsequent rise in the interest of many that Christianity was "suppressing" the truth and looking into Gnosticism as an "alternate version of Christianity" and failing to recognize that Gnosticism was not "pure Christianity" but rather paganism added to Christianity.

I don't think Christians are unreasonable to be concerned of the effects of the added publicity the movie may bring to the books.
User avatar
Arnobius
 
Posts: 2870
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 11:41 pm

Postby Nate » Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:09 pm

Vernhal wrote:I have about 5 friends who are devout christians and I trust. They all COMPLETELY missed the anti christian themes. Even in the last book.

You'll forgive me if I think they're lying or idiots, as the last book makes it very clear that it's anti-Christian.

“The Authority, God, the Creator, the Lord, Yahweh, El, Adonai, the King, the Father, the Almighty—those were all names he gave himself.â€
Image

Ezekiel 23:20
User avatar
Nate
 
Posts: 10725
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: Oh right, like anyone actually cares.

Postby Danderson » Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:02 pm

Heard something a few days ago about The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (the movie) might be released around the same time as The Golden Compass.....Not sure if it's true, but if it is I'd say Bring on the Amunition...
User avatar
Danderson
 
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: The Middle of the USA

Postby Warrior 4 Jesus » Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:12 pm

Not true. Prince Caspian comes out May 16, 2008 in the US, God knows when it comes out in Australia.
User avatar
Warrior 4 Jesus
 
Posts: 4844
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 10:52 pm
Location: The driest continent that isn't Antarctica.

Postby [GMOD]Vedicardi » Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:31 pm

From an "ex-christian" standpoint, the books were very entertaining, far better than any other trilogy I've read so far in my opinion. (Then again, I haven't read too many...)

As for everyone else, I actually suggest you watch the movie or read the books, and make comparisons between the book and real life. In my opinion, the book essentially states word for word what Christianity truly is.

But then again, that's only my opinion. I hope I didn't offend anyone or anything.
Come quietly to the camp
You'd look nice as a drawstring lamp
Don't you worry, it's only a shower
For your clothes here's a pretty flower.
User avatar
[GMOD]Vedicardi
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Postby Alexander » Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:16 pm

'[GMOD wrote:Vedicardi]From an "ex-christian" standpoint, the books were very entertaining, far better than any other trilogy I've read so far in my opinion. (Then again, I haven't read too many...)

As for everyone else, I actually suggest you watch the movie or read the books, and make comparisons between the book and real life. In my opinion, the book essentially states word for word what Christianity truly is.

But then again, that's only my opinion. I hope I didn't offend anyone or anything.


None taken from me, exactly. Although I'm still going to take my own opinion and choose to skip the series.

Also, begging your pardon, and I hope I don't offend you or create a debate against the rules here, but I wish to ask, why are you here to spread a belief against our faith? While I'm very open to non-religious members coming, it just seems a little un-wise to spread that kind of message here.

Anyways, back on topic.
<img src="patent pending.jpg"></p>
<p>Signature in progress</p>
User avatar
Alexander
 
Posts: 877
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 12:42 am
Location: Sometimes I wish I honestly knew.

Postby [GMOD]Vedicardi » Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:31 pm

Sorry. XD

I was told that although I am not a Christian, I can still... participate in the forums. I'm here more for the people, not what the people believe in.

You do have a point. I don't want to start a fight or anything, and I can see how this would.

I'll try to remember not to do anything like this again.
Come quietly to the camp
You'd look nice as a drawstring lamp
Don't you worry, it's only a shower
For your clothes here's a pretty flower.
User avatar
[GMOD]Vedicardi
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Postby Mave » Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:23 am

'[GMOD wrote:Vedicardi] In my opinion, the book essentially states word for word what Christianity truly is.


Heh. You've at least, strengthen the report that the books are indeedly written from a [I-don't believe-in-God] standpoint.

OK, I'm going to shut up until someone who actually watches the movie, writes here.
User avatar
Mave
 
Posts: 3662
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 9:00 am

Postby termyt » Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:22 am

'[GMOD wrote:Vedicardi]Sorry. XD

I was told that although I am not a Christian, I can still... participate in the forums. I'm here more for the people, not what the people believe in.

You do have a point. I don't want to start a fight or anything, and I can see how this would.

I'll try to remember not to do anything like this again.

Openly bashing Christianity or the various mainstream denominations is against the forum rules. Not because we can't take the criticism – I think this thread proves we do OK in that regard – but because we come here to engage in pro-Christian discussion.

At least you were civil, though. Thank you for that.

That said, I don’t think your comments were too out of line, assuming you believe them to be true, but if you are seeking real discussion on the nature of Christianity today, you should probably be more specific. As it stands, you’ve made a blanket statement that amounts to an accusation that we are all liars bent on distorting the truth in order to control the witless masses or some such.

Often, we get such a label because sometimes people are not treated well by those who call themselves Christians. But it literally takes nothing at all to call yourself a Christian. It takes a great deal more to actually live like one and none of us are perfect at doing so.

I would encourage you to look at Christianity as a whole and the good we accomplish as well as our short-comings before making a judgment as to whether we are fools or liars.
[color="Red"]Please visit Love146.org[/color]
A member of the Society of Hatted Members
Image
If your pedantic about grammar, its unlikely that you'll copy and paste this into your sig, to.
User avatar
termyt
 
Posts: 4289
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: oHIo

Postby Monkey J. Luffy » Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:59 pm

Aren't the polar bears called daemons too (with the A and the E combined) ? I find that a tad strange.

Originally I just thought my church was making a big deal because of all th monsters in it and stuff, but after all I've read i definitly back up my church on this one.
User avatar
Monkey J. Luffy
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 2:17 pm
Location: Home of the SOX!

Postby uc pseudonym » Fri Nov 30, 2007 2:29 pm

For the record, I think [GMOD]Vedicardi's comments were acceptable. Obviously we don't allow bickering, but general statements of belief are hardly condemned, provided they are not made simply to generate controversy.

[GMOD wrote:Vedicardi]In my opinion, the book essentially states word for word what Christianity truly is.

I'm not completely sure what you mean. The parallel church is clearly not like the one in our world, but rather Pullman's formulation of what he believes religion becomes when in power. Everything else is relatively theoretical and can't really be "word for word," unless I'm missing your meaning.

Monkey J. Luffy wrote:Aren't the polar bears called daemons too (with the A and the E combined) ? I find that a tad strange.

Not so. Dæmons are "spirit halves" of people in one of the two parallel worlds, animal-like creatures (small things, not polar bears) that are intrinsically tied to their existence. I'm not completely certain about the etiology of that word (and certainly not about Pullman's intentions), but it often refers to generic spirits so there may be nothing untoward about it.
User avatar
uc pseudonym
 
Posts: 15506
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 4:00 am
Location: Tanzania

Postby minakichan » Fri Nov 30, 2007 2:45 pm

I get why Pullman is so anti-Christian, but why so pro-sex?

"They [Adam and Eve] become aware of sexuality, of the power the body has to attract attention from someone else. This is not only natural, but a wonderful thing! To be celebrated! Why the Christian Church has spent 2,000 years condemning this glorious moment, well, that’s a mystery."

M'pretty sure there's no "Thou shalt not have sex" in the Bible. *headdesk* Or most of us wouldn't be around, yes? God created sex and he made it a beautiful and pleasurable thing (not that I've experienced it personally or anything); it's only problematic when it's... done in certain ways, and if, say, he thinks that doing it with chickens is "natural and wonderful" then it really isn't even worth talking about this guy anymore.

But from reading some of the articles, he sureeee is obsessed with sex, suggesting that wisdom and knowledge and such come from when a person begins to become sexually curious and goes through puberty. Not...quite... what I've seen in my middle school experience, but thaaaat's OK.
ImageImage
User avatar
minakichan
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:19 pm
Location: Tejas

Previous Next

Return to General Entertainment

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 337 guests