# The Golden Compass Controversy



## MBuzzy (Dec 8, 2007)

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Story?id=3970783&page=1



> Despite the fantastical scenery, talking armor-wearing polar bears and even a swarm of flying witches, "The Golden Compass" is getting more attention not for its use of fantasy, but instead for something very real: Religion.
> 
> 
> The film, now open nationwide, is based on "His Dark Materials," a trilogy of books by English author Philip Pullman, a self-proclaimed atheist.
> Ever since the film was commissioned  and even before shooting began  religious groups were outraged, pegging "The Golden Compass" as a direct attack on organized religion, particularly Catholicism.


 
Although I have not seen the movie, I'm curious about what other's thoughts are on the subject?  Are the makers of this movie somehow in the wrong for producing the movie?  Was the writer of the book in the wrong?  Does anyone have a right to condemn the movie based on the themes it may or may not present?


----------



## terryl965 (Dec 8, 2007)

I believe to many people try to put to much into things. It is a movie for entertainment only. Go see and enjoy yourself.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 8, 2007)

We went to the movie today. There is very little indication of an anti-religious sentiment in the movie; even if it is the premise of the book. The Ministry building looks like something from the planet Courasant in the new Star Wars films, rather than a religious building. There are a couple of scenes with Derek Jacobi and Christopher Lee which do lean toward high religious figures; they are appropriately nefarious.

Seems to me there wasn't a controversy when 'The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe' was released. I understand that this book could be read in a Catholic Mass (Ok, that is a small exaggeration).

Seems to me that religious folks are happy unless they are complaining about people who don't believe like them. 

The movie wasn't that good, by the way. Too much of the plot just happens too convienently, to fit the story, or set up the next scene. 

Although, the arc of the story with the Fighting, Armored, Polar Bears is pretty impressive and enjoyable. And, that is the voice of Gandalf playing the bear. We like Gandalf.


----------



## Kacey (Dec 8, 2007)

MBuzzy said:


> Although I have not seen the movie, I'm curious about what other's thoughts are on the subject?


I have not seen the movie nor read the books; however, based on a news interview I saw, the controversy arises from the lack of God - specifically, the author's complete rejection of the concept of God and organized religion in the _novels_ - something that was, apparently, totally omitted from the movie.  The parent I saw in the interview was concerned that her children might watch the movie and then decide to read the novels - and the novels totally contradict the religious values she is trying to teach.  Based on that, she was, apparently, convinced that her children would become heretical atheists purely from the exposure to the novels - which, as far as I'm concerned, bespeaks a total lack in her own teachings, if she thinks that's all it would take.



MBuzzy said:


> Are the makers of this movie somehow in the wrong for producing the movie?



I don't believe so.  If movies are only made about non-controversial topics, they would for the most part, IMHO, be quite boring.



MBuzzy said:


> Was the writer of the book in the wrong?



Again, I don't believe so.  Like movies, if books are only written on non-controversial topics, the majority would be quite boring.  



MBuzzy said:


> Does anyone have a right to condemn the movie based on the themes it may or may not present?



Yet again, I don't think so.  If you don't like the topic of a movie or book - don't watch it or read it.  Just remember that the protest itself tends to increase interest in the movie or book.

Objecting to novels and movies that specifically dismiss religion - or any other controversial topics - is like the groups that try to ban books such as Huckleberry Finn because of the use of a particular derogatory word, which was not seen as derogatory at the time the book was written; rather, the word in question was considered descriptive... but the book has been banned in many places, and a lawsuit is underway by a student who is claiming mental distress for having been required to read it.  Or the groups that banned a particular version of Little Red Riding Hood, because the picture of the basket she was carrying to Grandma had a bottle in it that could have been a wine bottle - totally appropriate for the time at which that version was printed, but it might give children the idea the Grandma _drank alcohol_ - oh, the horrors!  :xtrmshock


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 8, 2007)

terryl965 said:


> I believe to many people try to put to much into things. It is a movie for entertainment only. Go see and enjoy yourself.


 
I agree, Terry.  People put way too much into stuff like this.  People are going to see what they want to see and I'm sure that the same people who have a problem with this movie see the same problems with lots of other things.

I also wonder....if the opposite was done, a highly religious movie, how would the same people react?  I tend to think that all of the Atheists out there wouldn't say a word about it.  Which is the problem that I really have with the argument.  

Like Kacey said, if we have to stop making movies or books about anything that doesn't fit within a certain range of beliefs......well, we're communists.


----------



## Blindside (Dec 8, 2007)

I've read "the Golden Compass" and I really liked it.  The Church is protrayed as extremely political (internally and externally) and powerful, essentially being a major world power in its own right.  You know, exactly like how the church was historically, capable of doing some fairly dispicable things in order to maintain power for itself.  

I could see a Catholic being upset with the portrayal, of course if that was the case, they should be more upset at the actual history of the Church.  

Lamont


----------



## tshadowchaser (Dec 8, 2007)

My thought on it is that if you have religious problems with the film don&#8217;t go see it. If you do not have these problems it most likely will be an entertaining film for you

Personaly I am sick of any religious group telling me what I should see or believe


----------



## theletch1 (Dec 8, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> We went to the movie today. There is very little indication of an anti-religious sentiment in the movie; even if it is the premise of the book. The Ministry building looks like something from the planet Courasant in the new Star Wars films, rather than a religious building. There are a couple of scenes with Derek Jacobi and Christopher Lee which do lean toward high religious figures; they are appropriately nefarious.
> 
> Seems to me there wasn't a controversy when 'The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe' was released. I understand that this book could be read in a Catholic Mass (Ok, that is a small exaggeration).
> 
> ...


 
We like Gandalf, too.

It isn't always the religious that cry foul.  And if I remember correctly there was quite a bit of hoopla surrounding The lion, witch and wardrobe as being "christian propaganda".
Link to article.

*Cries of propaganda *
_This unusual genesis for a Christmas blockbuster has produced widespread suspicion that the finished film will function as religious propaganda. Americans United for Separation of Church and State denounced a statewide reading contest in Florida timed to coincide with public interest in the film. "This whole contest is just totally inappropriate because of the themes of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," Barry Lynn, the group's director, told the Palm Beach (Fla.) Post. "It is simply a retelling of the story of Christ."_ 

As for me I couldn't care less about controversy on either side.  I don't go to movies for the possible messages.  I don't go at all, actually.  I watch movies for entertainment.  If the religious groups don't like the message of the movie, well, just don't support it with your ticket purchase.  Same goes for the folks that had a problem with the Lion, witch and wardrobe.


----------



## tellner (Dec 8, 2007)

If you actually read the books you'll find that Pullman is a theist wrapped in a cloak of atheism. He does have an abiding hatred for those who conspire against the freedom of the human spirit. In this case it's the Church. In the male lead's world - ours - it's others maybe the State maybe the Rich. Even in Heaven it is not the Almighty, but someone who claims to speak for Him who is the cause of so much misery. Tyranny, lies, oppression and the destruction of human potential are the real enemies in His Dark Materials. And if that means that the Church as an institution deserves damnation, well, a good case could be made that the last time Jesus showed up in a church they killed him.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 8, 2007)

Two things you can be sure of:
1-No one hates the Catholic Church more than Catholics: Carlin, etc
2-No Christians will be blowing themselves up or demanding beheadings over this.


----------



## tahuti (Dec 8, 2007)

Can't understand where atheist came from. When I read books, story reminded me of gnostics, where false god rules material world (in books it is Authority) while true god is god of spirit (Dust) and serpent (knowledge) is actually showing way to escape false god.
Movie has removed most religious references so generic fantasy elements applies. Check review from US conference of catholic bishops http://www.usccb.org/movies/g/thegoldencompass.shtml

Would say author is more anti-bureaucratic, against stupidity than anti-religious. Faith is acceptable but dogma is not.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 9, 2007)

Jeff, just a couple of thoughts ....

It is hardly unusual that someone would claim that The Chronicles of Narnia is proganda for the Catholic Church, because, well, that is exactly what it is. C.S. Lewis wrote the series as a re-telling of the story of Jesus. This is not just speculation, as I understand it. There are writings by C.S. Lewis that tell us this very fact.

The article you quote is, interestingly, not a claim being raised by athiests, or agnostics. Americans United for the Separation of Church and State is a non-sectarian organization (as such, member of the group may be athiests or agnostics). The organization, as I understand, is found on the idea of keeping government out of religion. Currently, this organization is headed by 'Reverend Barry Lynn', an ordained minister.


----------



## ArmorOfGod (Dec 9, 2007)

terryl965 said:


> I believe to many people try to put to much into things. It is a movie for entertainment only. Go see and enjoy yourself.


 
I have to agree with this.
I am a devout Christian and have recieved countless uninformed conspiracy filled emails from my Christian friends denouncing the movie.
The bottom line for me is one flash in the pan movie is not going to turn an entire generation against God.
It's just a movie and in general, us Americans are not bright enough to see a hidden plot or message within a movie.  This mediocre movie will go unnoticed to video and will be in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart with a year.  Within 2 years, no one will even be able to remember it even exists.

AoG


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 9, 2007)

ArmorOfGod said:


> This mediocre movie will go unnoticed to video and will be in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart with a year.  Within 2 years, no one will even be able to remember it even exists.
> 
> AoG



From Box Office: Golden Compass disaster!


New Lines The Golden Compass, which has a reported budget of $200M+, has staggered out of the starting gate with an opening day of $9M or so, and it will likely muster only an estimated $27M for the weekend. In the realm of big budget, family-oriented family films, The Golden Compass opening is absolutely anemic.


----------



## theletch1 (Dec 9, 2007)

I wonder how long it will be before this low opening will be blamed on counter-advertising?  Hell, I had no idea of the controversy 'til this thread popped up here and had already decided from the commercials that it was at best a DVD purchase later on.  As I've said before, I don't do movies in theater.  Too loud, too pricey and always too many people.  It may be a good movie for all I know and I'll probably buy it on DVD but the CG fantasy movie has been somewhat disappointing of late and I think that has a lot to do with these low numbers.


----------



## Lisa (Dec 9, 2007)

Why are people always looking at things to complain about and get their panties in a knot? It is a book/movie.  Choose to see/read it or don't.  It is meant for entertainment purposes.  Stop raining on my parade.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 9, 2007)

Well, Pullman has stated pretty clearly that he is a atheist, and his books are refelective of that:



> Pullman has left little doubt about his books' intended thrust in discussions of his works, such as noting in a 2003 interview that "My books are about killing God" and in a 2001 interview that he was "trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief."



http://snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp

The Catholic League put out a booklet on how the movie is out to corrupt your kids:

http://www.catholicleague.org/images/upload/image_200710053349.pdf

Basically stating that while the movie has it's anti-religious themes largely stripped out, seeing the movie might lead to wanting to read the books.

But really I think it comes down to one thing.  No one complains if someone writes a book or movie promoting theism, the same people doing all the complaining are perfectly ok handing out propaganda to kids telling them to be Christians.  Why is one side ok and not the other?

I find it a little offensive that people think exposing kids to Christian beliefs is good for them, but exposing them to non-christian beliefs will corrupt them.  If that is the case, I'm left wondering how flawed the beliefs those people are teaching in the first place, that a set of books could be enough to convince there kids to abandon them.


----------



## Omar B (Dec 9, 2007)

I'm a fan of the books and an atheist so I'm the type who these boycotter s hate.  Oddly enough though, the books themselves are not exclusively anti-religion.  It's about control, a governing body taking away people's freedom of choice and that'll illustrated by them trying to take the children's deamons.  It's an alagory for indoctrinating kids into belief systems as a child, these same children who grow up to be zealots who think the entire world is wrong because they don't think of believe the same way.

It's just like any extremist religion out there.  Kids are indoctrinated, they grow up to become suicide bombers for the sake of their religion, or they become tireless crusaders to win people over to their beliefs if people want to hear it or not.

Also, in the series of books by the end of it you get to see that the characters kill god.  The Catholics have a problem with this but if they read closer they would have seen that it was the Magesterium's stand in for god.  He's essentially a false idol that the Church uses for their purpose, but then as an atheist like myself I see that as what the church does anyway.


----------



## Live True (Dec 9, 2007)

It has always made me curious...Why some people believe one book or one movie will corrupt the faithful.  In my mind, that means they either don't understand their faith deeply enough, there is a flaw in what they believe, or they believe for all the wrong reasons.  

IMHO, the more you read about your own faith and that of others, the better your own personal understanding will be and the stronger your faith, whatever that faith may be.  Yes, it can lead to moments of crisis....but you come out stronger in the end...or at least wiser.  We are creatures that grow and learn...how can our understanding of faith be any different?

Interesting side thought, my husband and I come from two totally different faiths.  Our conversations actually help us find many commonalities.  We have some concepts that are different, but we can peacefully coexist.  I believe it has made us both more secure in our own beliefts, rather than creating conflict.  Neither of us is interested in blending our faiths or changing our beliefs.  Our children will be brought up with both faiths, and they will choose what speaks to thier hearts.  Faith is a very personal choice!

So, to those complainers and protesters out there, I believe this phrase says it best:  "Remove the log from your own eye before attending to the splinter in another's" (Matt 7:15)


----------



## Omar B (Dec 9, 2007)

It scares them because faith is just belief without evidence.  I can have all the faith in the world that Superman exists and treat DC comics as holy text yet it won't make it true.  Religion is shaken to the core so easily because like any other fairy tale it does not stand up to logic and scrutiny.  They are afraid kids might like Pullman's fiction more than the bible's fiction.


----------



## Live True (Dec 9, 2007)

Omar B said:


> It scares them because faith is just belief without evidence. I can have all the faith in the world that Superman exists and treat DC comics as holy text yet it won't make it true. Religion is shaken to the core so easily because like any other fairy tale it does not stand up to logic and scrutiny. They are afraid kids might like Pullman's fiction more than the bible's fiction.


 
I just think their fear is misplace, because they are the one's responsible for the core of their children's beliefs and learning...so they need to step up to the plate and be role models AND guardians.  Don't ask others to be do thier job!

But on your implication that religion doesn't stand up to logic and scrutiny. and is therefore worthless...well...Some will find this ironic, as I am a Pagan defending Christianity.  However, my husband is Christian, I believe strongly that  each person must find thier own personal roots of belief and life, and we are both people of deep faith.

I don't think everything in this world has a logical, rational explanation...at least not one we understand at this time.  I mean, sheesh!  that would be so boring and deadening to the soul. 

Now, let me first say that I am a HUGE fan of hard science, the scientific method, and scientific theory.  But let's look at a few current theories and scientific concepts.  We can' t touch a black hole, and even now the theories of how they work and exist are still evolving and changing.  Does this mean they can't exist?  Don't think so.  Dark matter...is still just a theory, but one that is gaining validity in how the universe is constructed.

Or let's go back a bit further, to when the earth was the center of the universe.  That was proven fact of the day...we know now it wasn't well proven, but hey...they thought they had rationally determined that the world was flat and the earth the center of all....

Simply put, I think faith is several things, of varying degrees to varying folks:  1)where we put those personal truths that have not yet been proven by science 2)where our closely held personal beliefs find a foundation 3) where we find hope and comfort  4) and where we tie ourselves to something larger than the individual

You don't have to agree with me on this.  But I simply ask that you not paint someone as stupid or illogical, because they choose to have faith in something that cannot be seen or touched.  As the bard put it in Hamlet:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.


----------



## Omar B (Dec 9, 2007)

I'm not here to change anyone's belief either, I was simply stating how I see the issue being both an atheist and a fan of Pullman.  I'm also the son of a scientist and an economist and happen to be a journalist.  I'm programmed from birth to see logic and toss out fantasy, faith, belief and see facts.

_
It has often been noted that a proof of God would be fatal to religion: a God susceptible of proof would have to be finite and limited; He would be one entity among others within the universe, not a mystic omnipotence transcending science and reality. What nourishes the spirit of religion is not proof, but faith, i.e., the undercutting of man's mind. - Leonard Piekoff_


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 9, 2007)

Look at it in this light...

If you were a Republican (or Democrat, or whatever) and someone wrote a book negative, maybe even insulting, against your party, and you feel the book was inaccurate, then you would be against it.  Not because it threatened your view of politics or your beliefs as a Republican, but just that a) someone was insulting what you held dear and b) you would fear that people would look poorly upon your party for what you wold feel would be erroneous reasons.

Or TMA or Taekwondo or MMA or Boxing, for that matter.  Someone writes an article saying your art is no good.  You don't change your opinion of your art, but it's not fun for someone to be denigrating of your art, and you don't wan someone to have a negative impression of your art because of what you feel is misrepreentation


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 9, 2007)

MBuzzy said:


> http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Story?id=3970783&page=1
> 
> 
> 
> Although I have not seen the movie, I'm curious about what other's thoughts are on the subject? Are the makers of this movie somehow in the wrong for producing the movie? Was the writer of the book in the wrong? Does anyone have a right to condemn the movie based on the themes it may or may not present?




I believe in an open market. 

If someone wants to spend money to make a movie and then release it should be allowed and the public will let you know if ti was worth while with their money they spend. 

And if this movie is to be pulled then so should all religous movies.   Just to be fair and PC and all.


----------



## ChingChuan (Dec 9, 2007)

Unfortunately, it's been quite a while since I read the golden compass books, but as I am a Christian, I feel that there are some legitimate concerns regarding the books (I never saw the movies). It wasn't the lack of religion, however, and it's also not about the magic, but I seem to remember that there were some things about a creator and angels etc that I didn't quite agree with. (but unfortunately, it's too long ago... I think I should re-read them). Also, in the last book, the amber spyglass, one of the protagonists (a woman) uses I-Tjing to determine what she should do - a form of divination. I didn't really agree with that - the use of real, existing 'religion' in a fantasy setting. 
But to me, the story was quite confusing and the only thing I remember was a feeling like 'I don't think I really agree with this but it's not extremely bad either'. Still, I can't say I really enjoyed the books .

I'm a Harry Potter fan, so I already know that not everything that is said about books is true. However, I think that there are more anti-religious themes in the golden compass series than in the HP-series, so I wouldn't say that the church is being stupid... 
 If you were able to stop someone from walking into a ravine, you would do it. To some people, like most people on this thread seem to be, that ravine isn't real. Well, that's the way it is. But I don't think you can blame the people who _are_ seeing that ravine, from trying to stop you from falling into it... 

Also, I'd like to add that I view myself as a quite critical person and that I like science... I just can't stand it when Christians are seen as people who would just believe everything etc... God invites us to believe with our heart, soul AND mind - he wouldn't want brainless idiots following him... So, also regarding this kind of books/movies, I think that every christian should decide by hemselves what to do. After all, if something isn't explicitly forbidden in the bible (it's forbidden to practise witchcraft, but is it forbidden to read something that could be associated with it?), you can do two things - do it, or don't do it. The only point is, don't condemn the people who don't do it, and don't condemn the people who do... The only problem is that that's quite hard to achieve, especially when you really, really think it's wrong. (There's a great book,. What's a Christian to do with Harry Potter, on this subject... The view presented there works for every 'controversial' topic.)


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 9, 2007)

Omar B said:


> I'm not here to change anyone's belief either, I was simply stating how I see the issue being both an atheist and a fan of Pullman.  I'm also the son of a scientist and an economist and happen to be a journalist.  I'm programmed from birth to see logic and toss out fantasy, faith, belief and see facts.
> 
> _
> It has often been noted that a proof of God would be fatal to religion: a God susceptible of proof would have to be finite and limited; He would be one entity among others within the universe, not a mystic omnipotence transcending science and reality. What nourishes the spirit of religion is not proof, but faith, i.e., the undercutting of man's mind. - Leonard Piekoff_



It's kind of like the Christians that point out the "good" or "true" things in the Bible (Models of Law from Leviticus or Natural Law from Deuteronomy, for example), and then say "Well, all that stuff is good, right? See, that proves that THE BIBLE is true and good." 

A wise man once told me that "All good lies are at least 80% truth."


----------



## Steel Tiger (Dec 9, 2007)

I find it interesting to see what film or book is going to get the "its an insult to religion and God" treatment.  The Golden Compass is a film children will go along to, marvel at the grandeur presented, cheer for the good guys and sneer at the bad guys.  They don't go to a film to consider the deeper meanings of the images portrayed, most of _us_ don't do that.

Its funny though.  On the weekend I sat through a film called Gabriel about archangels and demons battling for the souls in purgatory.  This is blatant religiosity and it seriously changed important facts in the Christian mythos.  The Archangel Michael loses his faith and _falls_.  Why is it that we don't hear of films like this being castigated by religious groups.  True children are not going to see this film with its violence, drug culture and sexuality, but they could buy the book easily enough.

These assaults on on which film is or is not an attack on, or insult to, religion are rather arbitrary.  I think that religious groups have to have more faith in their supporters and develop a thicker skin.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 9, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> These assaults on on which film is or is not an attack on, or insult to, religion are rather arbitrary.  I think that religious groups have to have more faith in their supporters and develop a thicker skin.



They can't, actually, since most religions, if not all, simply won't stand up to the most cursory scrutiny. They aren't held together by truth, but by vehement faith and peer pressure.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 9, 2007)

> It has often been noted that a proof of God would be fatal to religion: a God susceptible of proof would have to be finite and limited; He would be one entity among others within the universe, not a mystic omnipotence transcending science and reality. What nourishes the spirit of religion is not proof, but faith, i.e., the undercutting of man's mind. - Leonard Piekoff



Um... no


Think about the faith in your own life.  Most of us have faith... faith that our instructor is teaching us well, faith that our training will serve us in good stead.  Faith that our spouse will be faithful to us, faith that our children will grow up to be people of good character.  This faith we have in the people around is is not a whim, but it based on our experience with those people.  Prior behavior leads to expected future behavior.  Trust begets faith

Religious people have the same faith.  Not a blind faith.  Most religious people believe they have an experiential basis for their faith based on an event or events in their own life.   That doesn't mean they are correct, their interpretation of the events they have experienced may be emotional, or may be biased or may be just flat out wrong.  Nevertheless that 'faith' is held to be a trust of expectations of the future based on experiences of the past.

Keep in mind that, at least with Christianity, the idea of 'faith' is a future expectation.  The New Testament that talks of faith does so for the point of view of having faith in what God *would* do, based on what they were eyewitness to seeing God already have done.  Regardless of the believed accuracy of the New Testament, it sets the framework for the Christian religion and way of thinking, and that tenor is one of a perspective that based on demonstrative proof of God's behavior, faith reaches forward to what is to be expected from God.  The 'faith' of the New Testament is simply  "we *saw* something (proof) therefore we *expect* something (faith)"

Because, contrary to the quote above, most religious people do have proof, at least a proof that is sufficient for themselves, based on what they have seen and experienced.  The problem is that it is a personal proof based on the actions of a free-will agent, and as such is difficult to quantize, objectify, or empiricize.  So as a result it can't stand a proof for anyone else.  This is not a proof in any sort of scientific sense, of course, but is a 'sufficient' proof for getting through the day, which is not much different than the faith we have in the safety in our vehicles and the faithfulness of our spouses.

Most religious people do not come to a religious belief by reading a book and deciding that it sounds good, they come to  that belief by en experience or experiences which provide for them a 'proof', and that proof provides a foundation of belief, which sets the expectation for a faith.


The interpretation of that personal experience that sets the 'proof' for an individual is certainly open to discussion and debate as to it's veracity


----------



## Marginal (Dec 9, 2007)

MBuzzy said:


> http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Story?id=3970783&page=1
> 
> 
> 
> Although I have not seen the movie, I'm curious about what other's thoughts are on the subject?  Are the makers of this movie somehow in the wrong for producing the movie?  Was the writer of the book in the wrong?  Does anyone have a right to condemn the movie based on the themes it may or may not present?


Just watching the commercials makes me want to be a hard core atheist. Just like how Battlefield Earth instantly made me into a Scientologist.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 9, 2007)

FearlessFreep said:


> Um... no
> 
> 
> Think about the faith in your own life.  Most of us have faith... faith that our instructor is teaching us well, faith that our training will serve us in good stead.



this is often blind faith, the same as faith in some future reward from an intangible unknowable god.



FearlessFreep said:


> Faith that our spouse will be faithful to us, faith that our children will grow up to be people of good character.


 faith in a spouse & in children usually comes from past _*experience,*_ unlike religion.



FearlessFreep said:


> This faith we have in the people around is is not a whim, but it based on our experience with those people.  Prior behavior leads to expected future behavior.  Trust begets faith.



Absolutely true. Faith based on experience is not blind. 



FearlessFreep said:


> Religious people have the same faith.  Not a blind faith.  Most religious people believe they have an experiential basis for their faith based on an event or events in their own life.   That doesn't mean they are correct, their interpretation of the events they have experienced may be emotional, or may be biased or may be just flat out wrong.  Nevertheless that 'faith' is held to be a trust of expectations of the future based on experiences of the past.



So, religious people have faith in a past experience that they *believe* to be attributed to supernatural origin or explanation. If such an experience actually could be attributed to a supernatural force... which cannot be proven, though the need to be accepted within the church community can fuel all kinds of imaginary happenings.



FearlessFreep said:


> Keep in mind that, at least with Christianity, the idea of 'faith' is a future expectation.  The New Testament that talks of faith does so for the point of view of having faith in what God *would* do, based on what they were eyewitness to seeing God already have done.



"Eyewitness"???  "Um... no"



FearlessFreep said:


> Regardless of the believed accuracy of the New Testament, it sets the framework for the Christian religion and way of thinking, and that tenor is one of a perspective that based on demonstrative proof of God's behavior, faith reaches forward to what is to be expected from God.  The 'faith' of the New Testament is simply  "we *saw* something (proof) therefore we *expect* something (faith)"



I'm not even going to get into the complete and utter lack of independently verifiable proof than anything in the Gospels is true, let alone the vast majority of Jewish Old Testament "history". 

B





FearlessFreep said:


> ecause, contrary to the quote above, most religious people do have proof, at least a proof that is sufficient for themselves, based on what they have seen and experienced.  The problem is that it is a personal proof based on the actions of a free-will agent, and as such is difficult to quantize, objectify, or empiricize.  So as a result it can't stand a proof for anyone else.  This is not a proof in any sort of scientific sense, of course, but is a 'sufficient' proof for getting through the day, which is not much different than the faith we have in the safety in our vehicles and the faithfulness of our spouses.



If your "proof" cannot be objectively quantified, is it proof? Most would say NO. Comparing the tangible to the intangible is like comparing quantum physics to Newtonian. Apples and Oranges.



FearlessFreep said:


> Most religious people do not come to a religious belief by reading a book and deciding that it sounds good, they come to  that belief by en experience or experiences which provide for them a 'proof', and that proof provides a foundation of belief, which sets the expectation for a faith.



Not true. Most people get into religion for fear of eternal punishment or some feeling of lack in their self-image. & most if not all people like to have a reason for experiences they can't wrap their little intellects around. THAT'S where they get the religious attribution from.


----------



## Omar B (Dec 9, 2007)

FearlessFreep said:


> Um... no
> Think about the faith in your own life.  Most of us have faith... faith that our instructor is teaching us well, faith that our training will serve us in good stead.  Faith that our spouse will be faithful to us, faith that our children will grow up to be people of good character.  This faith we have in the people around is is not a whim, but it based on our experience with those people.  Prior behavior leads to expected future behavior.  Trust begets faith
> Religious people have the same faith.  Not a blind faith.  Most religious people believe they have an experiential basis for their faith based on an event or events in their own life.   That doesn't mean they are correct, their interpretation of the events they have experienced may be emotional, or may be biased or may be just flat out wrong.  Nevertheless that 'faith' is held to be a trust of expectations of the future based on experiences of the past.
> Keep in mind that, at least with Christianity, the idea of 'faith' is a future expectation.  The New Testament that talks of faith does so for the point of view of having faith in what God *would* do, based on what they were eyewitness to seeing God already have done.  Regardless of the believed accuracy of the New Testament, it sets the framework for the Christian religion and way of thinking, and that tenor is one of a perspective that based on demonstrative proof of God's behavior, faith reaches forward to what is to be expected from God.  The 'faith' of the New Testament is simply  "we *saw* something (proof) therefore we *expect* something (faith)"
> ...



Faith that our instructor is teaching us well - No, I chose an instructor out of many and I pay him for a service.  There's no belief without fact (faith) it's belief because I assessed him as a teacher.
Faith that our spouse will be faithful to us - That's trust not faith and since most marriages end in divorce anyways.
Faith that our children will grow up to be people of good character -  No, that's good parenting.

No matter what you say about faith I'm not gonna become a believer.  If I can see proof or credible record of proof that's verifiable.  I'll leave the faith to the ones who don't want to deal in such things as proof.


----------



## Omar B (Dec 9, 2007)

I like the cut of your jib Doc_Jude, a man who understands objectivity and does not attribute every good thing that happens to some invisible, unverifiable force.

For instance, God is infinite. Nothing can be infinite, according to the Law of Identity. Everything is what _it is_, and nothing else. It is limited in its qualities and in its quantity: it is this much, and no more. "Infinite" as applied to quantity does not mean "very large": it means "larger than any specific quantity." That means: no specific quantity&#8212;i.e., a quantity without identity. This is prohibited by the Law of Identity.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 9, 2007)

It never fails to amuse me that those who don't believe in a god are as keen to prove they are right as those who do believe!
Why is it so important to be 'right'? what happened to live and let live? Why must it have to be proved that the Bible is right or wrong? Does it matter? If you don't believe in the Bible why does it worry you that people do and vice versa? I don't see the need to argue over faith, you can have faith in what you want to have faith in or have none at all but please don't attack people just because they don't believe the same as you.
The topic is the film 'The Golden Compass' not the existance of a God as such, it really shouldn't turn into a thread attacking people which is where I fear it may lead. 
Fearless Freep's post I felt was a well thought out impartial one and he made good points without stating what his religion was if indeed he has one! I suspect the following two posters may have not taken on board his points and his use of inverted commas.


----------



## fireman00 (Dec 9, 2007)

whether you decide to believe in God or not isn't really the issue... it would appear that the biggest slap in the face of the church would be in the timing of the release... why did the studio decide to put out the movie that which has undeniable anti-religious undertones - one that's written by an avowed atheist - unless they desired all this attention drawn to the movie?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 9, 2007)

fireman00 said:


> whether you decide to believe in God or not isn't really the issue... it would appear that the biggest slap in the face of the church would be in the timing of the release... why did the studio decide to put out the movie that which has undeniable anti-religious undertones - one that's written by an avowed atheist - unless they desired all this attention drawn to the movie?


 
Have you seen the movie? From your description, I would have to say that you have not. 

The statement the movie has 'undeniably anti-religious undertone' just doesn't agree with what I saw on the screen this weekend. 

From watching the film, there is no way one could presume the author was an 'avowed athiest', nor an avowed vegitarian, nor an avowed anything. It is just not in the story. 

As for drawing attention to the movie ... uh, ... isn't that the point?



Incidently, overseas gross for five days was $55 million. Domestic gross was $26 million.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 9, 2007)

Personally, when I watched Chronicles of Narnia, I had no idea of the history behind the books or who wrote them or why (I know, I'm sheltered).....and I saw no religious overtones - because I wasn't looking for them.

I'm sure that if you look for the religious overtones in the movie, you'll see them.  If not, you'll just see a fantasy movie.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 9, 2007)

MBuzzy said:


> Personally, when I watched Chronicles of Narnia, I had no idea of the history behind the books or who wrote them or why (I know, I'm sheltered).....and I saw no religious overtones - because I wasn't looking for them.
> 
> I'm sure that if you look for the religious overtones in the movie, you'll see them. If not, you'll just see a fantasy movie.


 
While I mostly agree with you ... there are many things in the movie that aren't quite as clear as in the book (as I understand it, having never read Narnia) ... I think the whole resurrection of the Lion is one seriously strong religious overtone. 

He was dead. He came back to life. Made some sort of comment about self-sacrifice. I don't know, to me, that's a pretty big overtone.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 9, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I think the whole resurrection of the Lion is one seriously strong religious overtone.
> 
> He was dead. He came back to life. Made some sort of comment about self-sacrifice. I don't know, to me, that's a pretty big overtone.


 
If you're looking for it....not all stories of resurrection are based on the bible.  I'm watching Pirates of the Carribbean and Jack Sparrow is brought back to life after sacrificing himself.......ok, maybe a bad example, but you get the point.  If the author hadn't stated that the books were based on christianity, not nearly as many people would have drawn that conclusion - in my very humble opinion.  Although, I remember the conversation I had after seeing that movie and I said "Aside from the Lion coming back to life, I don't see what the movie had to do with religion." 

As for The Golden Compass, I intend to see it this week, so we'll see.  Although I intend to go into it pretty objectively....


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 9, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> It never fails to amuse me that those who don't believe in a god are as keen to prove they are right as those who do believe!
> Why is it so important to be 'right'? what happened to live and let live? Why must it have to be proved that the Bible is right or wrong? Does it matter? If you don't believe in the Bible why does it worry you that people do and vice versa? I don't see the need to argue over faith, you can have faith in what you want to have faith in or have none at all but please don't attack people just because they don't believe the same as you.



Yeah, tell that to the Religious Right that feel justified to affect legislation here in the U.S., forcing the values of their belief system on everyone else. Separation of Church and State, for sure...


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 9, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> While I mostly agree with you ... there are many things in the movie that aren't quite as clear as in the book (as I understand it, having never read Narnia) ... I think the whole resurrection of the Lion is one seriously strong religious overtone.
> 
> He was dead. He came back to life. Made some sort of comment about self-sacrifice. I don't know, to me, that's a pretty big overtone.



Yeah, that was an obvious one for me. I think it would be for anyone aware of any Messiah myth.

For the Record, I read every Narnia book when I was younger & loved 'em all. Great stuff. But if I don't let the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, or any other religious book brainwash me, some fiction written by born-again Christians and born-once-is-enough Athiests isn't gonna get me.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 9, 2007)

MBuzzy said:


> If you're looking for it....not all stories of resurrection are based on the bible.  I'm watching Pirates of the Carribbean and Jack Sparrow is brought back to life after sacrificing himself.......ok, maybe a bad example, but you get the point.  If the author hadn't stated that the books were based on christianity, not nearly as many people would have drawn that conclusion - in my very humble opinion.  Although, I remember the conversation I had after seeing that movie and I said "Aside from the Lion coming back to life, I don't see what the movie had to do with religion."
> 
> As for The Golden Compass, I intend to see it this week, so we'll see.  Although I intend to go into it pretty objectively....



I didn't see the movie ("The Lion, The Witch...") but I've read the books serval times.  The first book , which the movie is from, is not as strong in it's allegory and later works, particularly a few scenes in "Voyage Of tHe Dawn Treader", some of the creation story ("The Magician's Nephew", although like Tolkien's "Silmarilion", the creation mythology is fairly original).  But especially some of the wrap up in "The Last Battle".  Add this to C.S.Lewis own beliefs and comments you can read some of that allegory back into "The Lion, The Witch..." even if you don't see it on it's own


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 9, 2007)

Omar B said:


> It scares them because faith is just belief without evidence.  I can have all the faith in the world that Superman exists and treat DC comics as holy text yet it won't make it true.  Religion is shaken to the core so easily because like any other fairy tale it does not stand up to logic and scrutiny.  They are afraid kids might like Pullman's fiction more than the bible's fiction.



I tried praying to Superman but it didn't work too well. I've switched to WonderWoman.  Still no answer but she's easier on the eyes. :rofl:



Doc_Jude said:


> They can't, actually, since most religions, if not all, simply won't stand up to the most cursory scrutiny. They aren't held together by truth, but by vehement faith and peer pressure.



Religions and political parties share much of the same things, the answering of the unknown and the need to belong being 2.  When you're in the "clique" who cares if you're right?



Marginal said:


> Just watching the commercials makes me want to be a hard core atheist. Just like how Battlefield Earth instantly made me into a Scientologist.



It was a busy year for me.....first I became a Sith, then a Wizard, then a Vampire.  Curse these movies and their constant attack on faith.



Tez3 said:


> It never fails to amuse me that those who don't believe in a god are as keen to prove they are right as those who do believe!


It's actually more so the Christians, Muslims and "I aint with thems".  Most of the rest of us just wish they'd all shut the **** up and get on with more important things.



> Why is it so important to be 'right'? what happened to live and let live? Why must it have to be proved that the Bible is right or wrong? Does it matter? If you don't believe in the Bible why does it worry you that people do and vice versa? I don't see the need to argue over faith, you can have faith in what you want to have faith in or have none at all but please don't attack people just because they don't believe the same as you.



Because we as a people are naturally insecure. We all want to be "right".  The right party, the right job, the right art, the right career, the right faith.  We're whiny little specs who want to be something that may not be, God. Because we have the mistaken belief that God is always right.



> The topic is the film 'The Golden Compass' not the existance of a God as such, it really shouldn't turn into a thread attacking people which is where I fear it may lead.



Very true.  Though in some cases I suspect there will be cross over as the attacks on the film come from a verbose subgroup of a particular faith...a subgroup who fears anything outside their narrow norm.  I expect most folks will either see the film or not based on if it interests them.



fireman00 said:


> whether you decide to believe in God or not isn't really the issue... it would appear that the biggest slap in the face of the church would be in the timing of the release... why did the studio decide to put out the movie that which has undeniable anti-religious undertones - one that's written by an avowed atheist - unless they desired all this attention drawn to the movie?



When should they have released it?  Christmas isn't the only religious holiday this month. 2 other major faiths also have holidays in December, as well as dozens of minor ones. 



michaeledward said:


> While I mostly agree with you ... there are many things in the movie that aren't quite as clear as in the book (as I understand it, having never read Narnia) ... I think the whole resurrection of the Lion is one seriously strong religious overtone.
> 
> He was dead. He came back to life. Made some sort of comment about self-sacrifice. I don't know, to me, that's a pretty big overtone.



See: Jack Sparrow, Barbossa, Neo, Blade, Obi Wan Kenobi, Elektra, Spock, Superman, dozens of DC and Marvel superheros, etc.  

The whole resurrection things a non issue, unless the argument is only Christianity can use it as a plot device.



MBuzzy said:


> If you're looking for it....not all stories of resurrection are based on the bible.  I'm watching Pirates of the Carribbean and Jack Sparrow is brought back to life after sacrificing himself.......ok, maybe a bad example, but you get the point.  If the author hadn't stated that the books were based on christianity, not nearly as many people would have drawn that conclusion - in my very humble opinion.  Although, I remember the conversation I had after seeing that movie and I said "Aside from the Lion coming back to life, I don't see what the movie had to do with religion."
> 
> As for The Golden Compass, I intend to see it this week, so we'll see.  Although I intend to go into it pretty objectively....



True.




My opinion is, screw em.  If I feel like seeing the movie, I will, if I don't I won't. I refuse to let some narrow minded religious cowards decide for me.  They whined over Harry Potter, they whined over The Davinci Code, now they have got their closed minded brains knotted up over this film.  Hell, I've heard they were pissed over The Passion even. (Not enough blood?)  

Any film is going to have issues, especially when you go looking for them.  So what if it was written by an atheist? In the mjority of these cases, the person doing the kvetching has a-never read or seen it and b-is going off what someone else who has never read/seen it said.  Carlin was right. They are afraid of knowledge, that their kids might see a conflicting idea and start thinking for themselves. Heaven Forbid! Anything that might make little Tommy read more is of "Satan". 

I won't be seeing the film, because it doesn't interest me. Seemed stupid when I saw the commercials. But if you aren't seeing it because someone told someone who told someone who told you that "Jesus will cry" or some such crap...well, then you're an idiot. 

Google it, wiki it, stop in at the library and read the back cover, and make up your own mind.  If you don't want your kids seeing it or reading it, well then, be a parent and put your foot down.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 9, 2007)

Personally, I'd like to see someone make some films of some of Og Mandino's stuff.  Now he could write.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Dec 9, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> My opinion is, screw em. If I feel like seeing the movie, I will, if I don't I won't. I refuse to let some narrow minded religious cowards decide for me. They whined over Harry Potter, they whined over The Davinci Code, now they have got their closed minded brains knotted up over this film. Hell, I've heard they were pissed over The Passion even. (Not enough blood?)
> 
> Any film is going to have issues, especially when you go looking for them. So what if it was written by an atheist? In the mjority of these cases, the person doing the kvetching has a-never read or seen it and b-is going off what someone else who has never read/seen it said. Carlin was right. They are afraid of knowledge, that their kids might see a conflicting idea and start thinking for themselves. Heaven Forbid! Anything that might make little Tommy read more is of "Satan".
> 
> ...


 
Damn Bob, that is serious quality!  

Its not films and books like The Golden Compass that people should be worried about.  Its things like Divine Secrets of the Ya Ya Sisterhood, or The Jane Austen Book Club.  They are bland, mind-shrivelling pap that do not inspire people to think beyond their normal existence.  They cater to mediocrity and thay are to be feared for that.


----------



## tellner (Dec 9, 2007)

There are many sorts of faith. My faith in the Sun coming up tomorrow is based on over ten thousand separate confirmations without a single miss and the firm conclusions of well-tested coherent theory. My faith in my wife is due to repeated evidence. My faith that my martial arts teacher is correct when he says "Do it this way. You don't understand why now, but you will later" is based on sixteen years of him being right.

My religious faith is subjective and personal. I would not expect anyone to share it for exactly those reasons. 

My faith in other people's religions is scant. But I accord them exactly the same right to have them that they extend to me. 

The religious overtones in the Narnia books and the movie were overwhelming. The whole martyrdom of Aslan was straight out of the Stations of the Cross and every Passion Play that's ever been put on. But it may be easier for me to see that as an outsider. As "Jew scum" - their words, not mine - I had to know the theology and superstitions better than the bastards who beat me up over their belief in it.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 10, 2007)

The resurrection of gods is an ancient belief that came long before Christianity and long before Judaism so when I read the Narnia books i didn't think of them as Christian even though I knew they were written to be seen as that. I'm not a Christian and reading the Narnia books along with a whole range of other religious books hasn't changed my faith or my views just helped me understand how other people think and felt.
I firmly believe that if you are secure in what your beliefs/faith is there is very little that will shake you out of it. 
I probably will wait until a friend of mine copies the film ( yeah I know that's naughty lol) and watch it on a boring night shift as the film hasn't had good reviews, not because of any religious or non religious reasons but purely on the lack of story and the way it's been put together. The acting isn't supposed to be that good either according to the critics in the Sunday papers, we'll see. Whatever though, I shall either enjoy it or not as a story but it certainly won't change my views on life.

I am curious though as why the Christian right has such a hold on America? If the Founding Fathers went to America for religious freedom why does religion play such a part in politics? I could Google I expect but much better to hear views of real people! (without starting a war lol)


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 10, 2007)

Tez3, it really is kind of sad that the commentary tells us the acting isn't very good;  Derek Jacobi, Christopher Lee, the voice of Ian McKellen, Nicole Kidman, Daniel Craig. This is far from a mediocre cast. 

Of course, the little girl is the focus .... and I think she doesn't look the part. And, I don't think she can carry a film. That may be why we have talking animals. She looks older than twelve, I thought, through most of the film. And there was one scene in particular when no amount of make up was able to cover the normal skin troubles of youth. Oh, and the other kids aren't any better. I think they were hired because they were cute; not because they could act.

Lastly, the religious right have strength in this country because of the religious mainstream. Someone else on this board does a much better job explaining how the silence of the middle give platform to the extreme. And, for the most part, most of us will believe in religious freedom, and will tolerate the occassional nut-case (such as William Donohue etc) for two reasons; the First Amendment, and the perrenial opinion that all politicians are the same.

And as for why the nut case religious leaders feel they have power, well, because nobody tells them to sit down and shut up. They can continue with their lies about our nation being founded as a Christian Nation. There is just enough evidence to support that position, provided they ignore other evidence that shows a more complete picture; a Nation created under the guiding principles of The Enlightment.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 10, 2007)

Thanks ME, it's an interesting subject when discussed dispassionately! I must admit I have a fascination with the more bizarre (to me I hasten to add before I upset anyone!) religious practices that seem to come out of America in particular such as snake handling and mass faintings etc. English people would be horrified at making a spectacle of themselves as they see it lol! 
What a shame about the film though, I like escapist/fantasy films and with that cast it seemed promising. The 'message' behind films doesn't ever bother me, I want to be entertained.


----------



## Omar B (Dec 10, 2007)

Crazy relgious things seen in America?  How about those people who dance around with snakes!  Damn those dudes are nutz!

In any case, fiction is there to inspire, to present life as it could be, maybe as it should be.  It's called fiction because it's not a naturalistic look at our world, if I wanted that I would talk to my neighbour instead of sitting on the couch reading Atlas Shrugged for the thousandth time.  

Fiction should also ask the important questions.  In the case of The Golden Compass it's the questions of indoctrination as a child, the thought police when you are an adult, and only asking the approved questions so you'll get the approved answers.


----------



## CoryKS (Dec 10, 2007)

I don't really have a dog in this fight, being neither Christian nor of the belief that anybody is actually trying to _prevent_ me from seeing this movie.  Convince, perhaps, but not prevent.  Big difference.  

I'm more interested in the pattern of dialogue that emerges every time something of this nature comes along.  Side A opens with, "This [movie|book|other] is going to fill our children's heads with [anti-whateverIbelieve] propaganda!"   Then Side B counters with, "It may or may not be propaganda, but it will promote dialogue which is always good thing."  Then, a month or so, the object of contention dies a quiet death and Side A releases something that runs contrary to Side B's beliefs and we see just how deep their devotion to "promoting dialogue" really is.  Usually not very.


----------



## Live True (Dec 10, 2007)

*First, to the original point of this post/line:*
I have to agree with Tellner and Tez3 here, in that I am not trying to change anyones beliefs and do not expect anyone to change mine. A movie or a book is simply a tool for entertainment and/or enlightenment. They are not brainwashing tools unless the brain perceiving them is so easily swayed.

While I am concerned about the tone some posters have taken that equates having faith as stupiditythat is their opinion, and they have the right to state it. Just keep in mind, ladies and gents, disagreement doesnt mean trying to change anyones mind. This is a discussion, and open discussion is healthy and good. I will gladly support an opposing positions right to an opinion, as long as they dont deny me my right to disagree or belittle my own opinions.

*And then to two points where weve gotten a bit off topic:*
Tez3 did a great job of noting that the resurrection myth is far older than Christianity, so I wont elaborate except to note that the resurrection myth is almost always based on the sacrifice for the greater principle. Whether that is for the sins of humanity or to assure good crops and food for the peoplethe idea is the same. Yes, religion does provide comfort to many, but it is also humanitys attempts to make sense of the world around them and to affect it in some positive (we hope) way.

Doc Jude and Omar B
It seems you are definitely not for faith or religion of any sort. I wonder, have you read Richard Dawkins? The God Delusion I dont wholly agree with his premise, but you might enjoy the read.



Doc_Jude said:


> Yeah, tell that to the Religious Right that feel justified to affect legislation here in the U.S., forcing the values of their belief system on everyone else. Separation of Church and State, for sure...


 


Tez3 said:


> I am curious though as why the Christian right has such a hold on America? If the Founding Fathers went to America for religious freedom why does religion play such a part in politics?


 


michaeledward said:


> Lastly, the religious right have strength in this country because of the religious mainstream. Someone else on this board does a much better job explaining how the silence of the middle give platform to the extreme. And, for the most part, most of us will believe in religious freedom, and will tolerate the occassional nut-case (such as William Donohue etc) for two reasons; the First Amendment, and the perrenial opinion that all politicians are the same.[...]And as for why the nut case religious leaders feel they have power, well, because nobody tells them to sit down and shut up.


Ah.this is an interesting point near and dear to my heart! Sheople (sheep + people = sheople) abound. Tez, ME has it right in stating it is the silence of the majority that allows the fundamentalist to have such power. It is also, sadly, that many folks are eager to complain about the religious right and their power, but dont use their own voice to vote, contact their politicians, organize political groups, etc. We are a representational democracy, but it is a very small group that see this as a responsibility as well as a right. We have a strong problem with voter apathy and disempowerment (drawn from folks who give it up, more than it being taken away).

Me? I plan to vote, speak up, and voice my opinionslisten to others, and try to have some meaningful conversation.

As to this movieI love sci fi/fiction/fantasy and was interested in seeing the filmnow? Based on the feedback Im hearingwill probably wait and netflix it. Im glad it was madebecause it means people are talking.at least, hopefully its talking and not shouting.


----------



## CoryKS (Dec 10, 2007)

Actually, I'm going to hold off on seeing this movie until I've heard back from a credible source that it is pretty good.  And by "credible source", I mean somebody who hated Eragon with the heat of a thousand suns.


----------



## Live True (Dec 10, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> Actually, I'm going to hold off on seeing this movie until I've heard back from a credible source that it is pretty good. And by "credible source", I mean somebody who hated Eragon with the heat of a thousand suns.


 
:roflmao::rofl::bangahead::highfive:


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 10, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> Actually, I'm going to hold off on seeing this movie until I've heard back from a credible source that it is pretty good.  And by "credible source", I mean somebody who hated Eragon with the heat of a thousand suns.




Actually I saw Eragon and did not dislike it but that's because I have pretty interesting taste in movies.  By no means it is a good movie, but I did enjoy the time watching it.  Within about 10 minutes in something about the plot setup and choice of names made me say "Well, I've see this movie a dozen times on SciFi channel in the last few months".   Not that I actually had, but everything was so cliched and by-the-numbers that I knew I had seen a number of movies 'just like it', and quite recently because that was a time not too long ago where SciFi was on a big "B-Movie CG Dragons" kick (they get on those every now and then).  So the movie was pretty bad, but in a vein that I tend to enjoy. (But to put it in context, I thought JCVH was hilarious and own a copy of "Future War" so...)


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 10, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> Actually, I'm going to hold off on seeing this movie until I've heard back from a credible source that it is pretty good. And by "credible source", I mean somebody who hated Eragon with the heat of a thousand suns.


 
Well I guess I am not the only one that won't be seeing it then. 



If this has been brought up before in this please forgive my intrusion but

How upset do you really think the producers of the The Golden Compass are at all the free publicity they have gotten off of this?


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 10, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> How upset do you really think the producers of the The Golden Compass are at all the free publicity they have gotten off of this?





Considering how bad it's been at the box-office, I guess they will take what they can get


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 10, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> Well I guess I am not the only one that won't be seeing it then.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
To paraphrase someone, I bet they are crying all the way to the bank!


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 10, 2007)

Personally, I have to wonder - do the arguing parties just believe our minds are that mushy and pliable or are enough minds mushy and pliable that the feel they have a ground to stand on?  Is the constant assault on our rights (this one on free thought) deserved?

Ghandi said we're all the same and I agree and I think if anyone never questions anything they believe in they have lost sight of the forest.  But in asking hard questions and searching for answers, what I have is stronger and no doubt because of it.

And one of the most important teachings of Christianity comes to mind whenever these arguments come forth:  if you have complete faith in God and accept Jesus the Christ as your personal savior, no spiritual harm can befall you.  Whatever happened to this tenet?  Will we be tempted? Yes. Will be be challenged? Yes.  But that is the path ... is it not??  

The issue is not as it seems: it is not the movie ... nor the books ... nor the author ... nor the genre ... nor faith ... it is the war for control over the mind.

Now excuse me while I don my collection of theist symbols, my purple cape, my pointed hat, gather my wand, crystals, rosary, incense and library and trek to the nearest porn shop.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 10, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> Personally, I have to wonder - do the arguing parties just believe our minds are that mushy and pliable or are enough minds mushy and pliable that the feel they have a ground to stand on?  Is the constant assault on our rights (this one on free thought) deserved?


Well, theirs are, so they just assume everyone else is the same way.


----------



## CoryKS (Dec 10, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> Personally, I have to wonder - do the arguing parties just believe our minds are that mushy and pliable or are enough minds mushy and pliable that the feel they have a ground to stand on? Is the constant assault on our rights (this one on free thought) deserved?
> 
> Ghandi said we're all the same and I agree and I think if anyone never questions anything they believe in they have lost sight of the forest. But in asking hard questions and searching for answers, what I have is stronger and no doubt because of it.
> 
> ...


 
With respect, O Scrumptrelescent One, how is this an assault on our rights?  According to the article, the religious groups are calling for a boycott by those who agree with their views, which is quite different than forcing the movie to be censored.  And as to whether our minds are mushy and pliable, well, how is their position any different than this one?


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 10, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> With respect, O Scrumptrelescent One, how is this an assault on our rights?  According to the article, the religious groups are calling for a boycott by those who agree with their views, which is quite different than forcing the movie to be censored.  And as to whether our minds are mushy and pliable, well, how is their position any different than this one?


I'm not following your logic.  The thread you referenced is analyzing the effects on young girls viewing a woman who "finally" identified herself as a woman as a result of pole dancing.  Young minds are pliable, yes, and more so when the message is very clear: pole dancing is a womanly thing to do.  I don't think a young person can watch a movie about a compass, magic and dust and get "religion is bad."

I also wasn't suggesting that woman be censored, nor was I calling for a boycott of pole dancing, poles, Poles, sex, sensuality, nudity nor any other sensual or sexual accoutrement.

Am I missing your point?


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 10, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> I don't think a young person can watch a movie about a compass, magic and dust and get "religion is bad."


 
I think that this is the key point.....this is not an obvious conclusion.  You have to KNOW the symbols to get them.  The average child - or people that those opposed to the movie are trying to protect - are not going to draw that conclusion from this movie.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 10, 2007)

From the movie there is very little to point to the authority being religious, seems more Soviet style then Church style.  But apparently the books are much more clear that the bad guys are the church. (Movie stripped that out to avoid offending people too much)

Which is basically what the Catholic League has been saying, that the movie is the bait and the books are the trap.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 10, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> From the movie there is very little to point to the authority being religious, seems more Soviet style then Church style.  But apparently the books are much more clear that the bad guys are the church. (Movie stripped that out to avoid offending people too much)
> 
> Which is basically what the Catholic League has been saying, that the movie is the bait and the books are the trap.



I have heard from those that have read the books that his is the case.  Similar to Narnia in that the early books are more fantasy and you don't always see the allegory until you are further into the books and it gets more blatant.  With these books my understanding is that the content of the later books is much more obvious in it's stance(s)


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 10, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> I am curious though as why the Christian right has such a hold on America? If the Founding Fathers went to America for religious freedom why does religion play such a part in politics? I could Google I expect but much better to hear views of real people! (without starting a war lol)



As far as Christians in politics, I suppose it's because they're so interested in enforcing their moral agenda that they forgot the most important gift that their god supposedly gave them: FREE WILL. Of course, to them, their free will is most important. They could give a flip about anyone else's.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 10, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Lastly, the religious right have strength in this country because of the religious mainstream. Someone else on this board does a much better job explaining how the silence of the middle give platform to the extreme. And, for the most part, most of us will believe in religious freedom, and will tolerate the occassional nut-case (such as William Donohue etc) for two reasons; the First Amendment, and the perrenial opinion that all politicians are the same.
> 
> And as for why the nut case religious leaders feel they have power, well, because nobody tells them to sit down and shut up. They can continue with their lies about our nation being founded as a Christian Nation. There is just enough evidence to support that position, provided they ignore other evidence that shows a more complete picture; a Nation created under the guiding principles of The Enlightment.



Great Post!!!


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 10, 2007)

Live True said:


> Doc Jude and Omar B
> It seems you are definitely not for faith or religion of any sort. I wonder, have you read Richard Dawkins? The God Delusion I dont wholly agree with his premise, but you might enjoy the read.




Yes, it's a pretty good read. I agree.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 10, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> Actually, I'm going to hold off on seeing this movie until I've heard back from a credible source that it is pretty good.  And by "credible source", I mean somebody who hated Eragon with the heat of a thousand suns.



Eragon can take a long walk off a short pier. That redhead, otoh... smokin'!!!


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 10, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> Now excuse me while I don my collection of theist symbols, my purple cape, my pointed hat, gather my wand, crystals, rosary, incense and library and trek to the nearest porn shop.



*YEAH!  ROCK!!!*


----------



## thardey (Dec 10, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> Personally, I have to wonder - do the arguing parties just believe our minds are that mushy and pliable or are enough minds mushy and pliable that the feel they have a ground to stand on?  Is the constant assault on our rights (this one on free thought) deserved?
> 
> Ghandi said we're all the same and I agree and I think if anyone never questions anything they believe in they have lost sight of the forest.  But in asking hard questions and searching for answers, what I have is stronger and no doubt because of it.
> 
> ...



I haven't read the books, yet, but my wife just finished the first one and started the second, and she is actually seeing the movie as we speak, with her book club. I trust her judgment on  stuff like this, so, there's my experience. We are also both fans of the Narnia series, but were underwhelmed with the movie.

To start with Sheulsa's question about mushy minds, it's a lot easier to lead mushy-minded people in general, so there are many people who have worked hard to keep their followers in that mushy state. 

Lo and behold, the movie that they are calling to warn everyone about is a story about how keep their leadership roles by keeping people in a mushy-minded state, and deny them their imagination! Now, I'm not saying that the leaders who are calling for the boycott (not the same a censorship, as was mentioned above) are indeed only able to keep their jobs as leaders by mush-minding their followers, since I don't know them, but, if the shoe fits . . .

Conversely, the people who are mushy-minded may, in fact, be converted, or at least, be unable to lead their own children, because they have been trained to be mushy, and had it called "faith." (It's also easier to be a mushy-minded follower, if one must follow -- less responsibility).

I've worked with some pretty insecure pastors, and they must be extremely worried about this kind of movie -- but the very act of stopping people from watching this movie may make them look more like the villains in the movie!

On the other hand, I know quite a few Christians who are not threatened by this movie, and welcome dialog about it, for something new to discuss! (You just don't hear about them much 'cause they aren't throwing a fit!)

This reminds me of the Matrix. When it first came out, I was in a very protective Christan college. Buzz about the Matrix was everywhere. It was the first R-rated movie that I ever heard openly endorsed by religious people. They drew parallels about how "this world is not our home" and if we have enough faith "we can do anything," taking the "blue pill" is akin to being baptized. Of course, as Bob brought up earlier, Neo sacrifices himself, and is resurrected -- the savior. Etc, etc. 

Then the second one came out, and everybody was strangely quiet. Hmm, no sermon illustrations in that one, apparently. See, the Watowski (sp?) brothers are followers of Nietzsche. The Matrix was their way of explaining it. My wife had tried to watch it years before, but couldn't get into it. About a month ago, we read some Nietzsche, (or rather, the cliff-notes version), and then watched the Matrix, and the allegory was plain.

If someone had told the college faculty that the movie was about Nietzsche, (taboo!) and even philosophy in general (also taboo!) they would have called for a boycott, and warned all of us "impressionable students." 

I think the same would have happened with the Golden Compass. If Pullman had not said anything about being an Atheist until after the public commotion died down, (barring the use of specific Christian names for God in the third book), would anybody have really cared? Or even, how many pastors would have taken illustrations from the movies to use in their sermons?

(Don't even get me started on the sermon I heard about "I do believe in fairies, I do, I DO!")


----------



## kempocat (Dec 10, 2007)

I just came back from seeing this movie and I enjoyed it very much 
in my opinion it feels like a harry potter movie with a mix of 101 dailmations meets hansel and grettle
.
the makers of this movie should make a donation to the church as I am sure the contaversy they generated was very good for profits


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 10, 2007)

FearlessFreep said:


> Actually I saw Eragon and did not dislike it but that's because I have pretty interesting taste in movies.  By no means it is a good movie, but I did enjoy the time watching it.  Within about 10 minutes in something about the plot setup and choice of names made me say "Well, I've see this movie a dozen times on SciFi channel in the last few months".   Not that I actually had, but everything was so cliched and by-the-numbers that I knew I had seen a number of movies 'just like it', and quite recently because that was a time not too long ago where SciFi was on a big "B-Movie CG Dragons" kick (they get on those every now and then).  So the movie was pretty bad, but in a vein that I tend to enjoy. (But to put it in context, I thought JCVH was hilarious and own a copy of "Future War" so...)


Personally, *Eragon* seemed both in book and movie (I admit; I have not read the book completely, nor have I watched the entire movie) seemed very derivative.  I think if the author hadn't been a kid, it wouldn't have garnered the attention that it did.  (For what it's worth -- I felt similarly about *The Sword of Shanara* by Terry Brooks, too.  And that's a series that, in my opinion, has just gone on too long...)

With regard to the topic at hand...  I've read the entire series.  I didn't see it as anti-religion so much as anti-hierarchial or strict religion.  I thought the armored bears and daemons and few other things were great ideas...  But I can see where the Catholic League (and others) are coming from.  It is the responsibility of parents to be aware of the potential impact on their kids of various works of fiction.  I see two ways to respond to them, then.  You can try to ban them, hide them, and completely shelter the kids from them.  Of course, one of the most avid videogamers I've ever known was a kid whose parents didn't believe in having video games at home...  So he played them anywhere else he could...   Or... you can let the kids read most anything they want, but discuss it with them, and help them learn to read them with awareness and critical insight.  So that when you can't guide them directly -- you've given them the tools to guide themselves.

(By the way... The Catholic League and several similar groups review many books and movies each week; they issue their own ratings and opinions.  Many of them just don't get popular press like this.)


----------



## CoryKS (Dec 11, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> I'm not following your logic. The thread you referenced is analyzing the effects on young girls viewing a woman who "finally" identified herself as a woman as a result of pole dancing. Young minds are pliable, yes, and more so when the message is very clear: pole dancing is a womanly thing to do. I don't think a young person can watch a movie about a compass, magic and dust and get "religion is bad."
> 
> I also wasn't suggesting that woman be censored, nor was I calling for a boycott of pole dancing, poles, Poles, sex, sensuality, nudity nor any other sensual or sexual accoutrement.
> 
> Am I missing your point?


 
I guess where I was going with that is that you asked whether our minds were "mushy and pliable".  I think we agree that some minds are pliable - generally the young, for whom you were concerned in the thread about the pole-dancing, and also for whom the religious leaders here are expressing concern.  And perhaps also the subset of adults who are often brought up (not by you) as an example of "those who can't make good decisions" when the topic turns to things like regulating fast food or privatizing social security.

As far as boycotting goes, that is a common tactic (ab)used to varying degrees of success on every side of the political spectrum.  The other day I drove past a group of protestors urging a boycott of Petland because they buy animals from puppy mills.  Assuming for a moment that I wanted to buy a dog and I just had to have it from Petland, would their attempted interference with Petland's business be considered an assault on my rights?

My point, and it kinda ties back to my first post on this thread, is that it seems like the people who are upset about the Christians' reaction to this movie are faulting them for their tactics even when many of those would use the same tactics when confronted with something that offends _them_.  If it is, as you say, a war for the control of the mind, then what a majority of the debate becomes is outrage at the enemy for having the audacity to fire back.


----------



## CoryKS (Dec 11, 2007)

Doc_Jude said:


> Eragon can take a long walk off a short pier. That redhead, otoh... smokin'!!!


 
Ok, I'll give you that one.  Yes, indeed.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 11, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> As far as boycotting goes, that is a common tactic (ab)used to varying degrees of success on every side of the political spectrum.  The other day I drove past a group of protestors urging a boycott of Petland because they buy animals from puppy mills.  Assuming for a moment that I wanted to buy a dog and I just had to have it from Petland, would their attempted interference with Petland's business be considered an assault on my rights?


But again, we're talking apples, oranges and bananas, I think;

In the pole-dancing thread it was a comment (broadcast at an afternoon hour) regarding behavior associated with the sex trade to identify a person's wholeness in the label of their gender.  If it were on at 11:00pm I'd have less problem with it, rather feel sorry for the woman.  Could this be damaging to the development of children if they were to view it?  Well, my daughter said she wanted to pole dance after having seen that show so she can "feel like a woman."  She has the idea, at an age where she feels she should be treated the same as an adult (teenager) that she must display sensuality and sexuality to be a woman.  I am fighting that battle from minute to minute.  I don't think that show is solely responsible for this, but I think many of the strong sexual imagery and constant use of sex as a weapon in advertising, music and cinema is in part responsible.  I tried to keep her away from it - it's virtually impossible, but I still consider it my responsibility to try to point her in healthier ways.  Because I'm her parent.  A little cooperation would be nice, tho; such as putting stories like that one on the later broadcasts when she's in bed ... and music artists finding something besides sex to sing or rap about.  

In the boycott of Petland, this is protest against irresponsible practices in breeding animals for the purpose of the pet trade.  The breeding and treatment of animals is a moral one ... again subject to individual opinion.  How would a young or otherwise pliable mind be warped by the appropriate and responsible breeding practices or protesting the lack thereof? (sorry, I'm a housewife and my mind is slow on this one).

The Christian Political Machine, however, will step in when it's not necessary to do so and when church- or temple- attending youth are barraged with ideas about sin, godlessness and cultism in film before it ever comes out and they are thus influenced to believe what they are told instead of what they find for themselves, they become the victims of mind-control.



> My point, and it kinda ties back to my first post on this thread, is that it seems like the people who are upset about the Christians' reaction to this movie are faulting them for their tactics even when many of those would use the same tactics when confronted with something that offends _them_.  If it is, as you say, a war for the control of the mind, then what a majority of the debate becomes is outrage at the enemy for having the audacity to fire back.



Well, for me, I ask "what do they want?" That seems to tell me what I need to know to either make my decision right there or investigate further.

In our first case, what would a pole-dancing teacher want from telling my daughter, me and everyone else in the Portland Metro area that she "finallyf eels like a woman?"  Money!  My money, my daughter's money and a belly laff as my fat *** slowly and pathetically slides down that pole.

In the second case, what would the anti-Petco people want?  For you to consider the source of your pet and the breeding practices and use your heels to express your conscious.  Petco, OTOH, wants ... your money.

In the case of the church, what do you think *they* want?  Anyone?  Anyone?  DING DING DING!!!! That's right! they want your ... MONEY!!!!  Oh, and your mind.  Because if they have your mind, they have your money.  And if they have both, anyone who likes them will likely have your vote.  And if they have that, you don't need your rights to the pursuit of happiness, your right to assemble, your right to privacy (what would a god-fearing up-standing Christian need privacy for, anyway?), your right to a free and appropriate education, your right to vote (trust them, they know what's good for you more than you do anyway - Tellner from Orygun can attest to that), your right to bear arms (God will protect us all and when he's sleeping the military will) ... etcetera.

I'm sorry, but whenever someone marches forward with a cross above their heads ... and it's not down the center aisle towards the alter ... I cringe and clutch my rights defensively ... as should we all.


----------



## Live True (Dec 11, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> But I can see where the Catholic League (and others) are coming from. It is the responsibility of parents to be aware of the potential impact on their kids of various works of fiction. I see two ways to respond to them, then. You *can try to ban them, hide them, and completely shelter the kids from them*. Of course, one of the most avid videogamers I've ever known was a kid whose parents didn't believe in having video games at home... So he played them anywhere else he could... *Or... you can let the kids read most anything they want, but discuss it with them, and help them learn to read them with awareness and critical insight. So that when you can't guide them directly -- you've given them the tools to guide themselves.*
> 
> (By the way... The Catholic League and several similar groups review many books and movies each week; they issue their own ratings and opinions. Many of them just don't get popular press like this.)


 
YES!!!  Excellent points...best yet!  I, myself, vote for giving kids and adults the tools to make their own decisions....not for the mushy-brained at all!

Don't like it...don't watch it...don't want your kids to see it...then be a parent...let others make thier own choices.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 11, 2007)

I think it all comes down to one thing for me.  I'm not Catholic, yet I have seen countless movies telling me Catholicism is "right", yet I've still never thought to be self: "Jesus, I've had this whole God-damn thing wrong from day one!"

So they can suck it up and watch some movies that say its wrong, if there confidence in there beliefs is at all solid, they are no more likely to loose there faith over a movie then I am to find some of my own over a movie.


----------



## Kacey (Dec 11, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> I think it all comes down to one thing for me.  I'm not Catholic, yet I have seen countless movies telling me Catholicism is "right", yet I've still never thought to be self: "Jesus, I've had this whole God-damn thing wrong from day one!"
> 
> So they can suck it up and watch some movies that say its wrong, if there confidence in there beliefs is at all solid, they are no more likely to loose there faith over a movie then I am to find some of my own over a movie.



Me too.  Countless movies and books have told me why not being Christian - never mind Catholic - is going to condemn me to eternal, fiery Hell... and none of it has taken.  I guess the media is just not as strong as it thinks it is, hmm?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 1, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Story?id=3970783&page=1
> 
> 
> 
> Although I have not seen the movie, I'm curious about what other's thoughts are on the subject?  Are the makers of this movie somehow in the wrong for producing the movie?  Was the writer of the book in the wrong?  Does anyone have a right to condemn the movie based on the themes it may or may not present?




I saw the first movie this last week with my niece. It was her idea and her dad approved so I took her. 

Nothing in the movie was over the top. 

They stated there were multiple universes. Some had Demons which were representatives of the human's soul on the outside of the person. Others had no Demons at all, while others were all Demons and no Humans. They talked about Dust being the source of the Magic. They talked about the Magistrate who were trying to control the people for their best interest and lying to them and even experimenting on them against their wills. The Talking armored Bears had no Demons and there was was Bear who wanted his own Demon who he imagined it would look like a human. 

In my first paragraph I stated first movie as it obviously will have a sequel and they left off right after a climax but with "lots of stuff left to settle out". 

I saw nothing in the movie that was trying to convince me to do bodily harm to myself or that would corrupt my personal beliefs. 

While I support people not going to see something, I wonder if the same was said about "Passion ..." from a different perspective would it not just be as bad a movie as it presents something that not everyone believes in? 

I say if you enjoy it watch it. A movie does not have to be a political or religious statement for it to be enjoyable. 

To me it was the standard movie plot of the BAD Guys were controlling the world and wanted to change and modify everyone for "Their Safety". And of course there is only one child that can "read" the Golden Compass. The Prophecy as foretold, mentions the child coming forward. It is kind of the standard coming of age and finding oneself type plot line.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jan 1, 2008)

I saw it recently too....and you know, if I hadn't read it, I would have NO CLUE that it had anything to do with atheism.  In fact, I find it kind of hard to even draw that conclusion.

I still say that if a fantasy movie is enough to change your entire ingrained belief system, then you really didn't believe it in the first place.


----------

