Pastor G, I appreciate you asking me your question. But I have no answer(s) for you. I believe in God. I believe in hell. I also believe that there are lots of people who are always looking for ways to change your mind or lead you down another path, whether it be religion or the music you listen to or any other 'belief'. I tend to shy away from talks of politics, religion or a battle of wits. I thought what SB brought to light was very interesting. I have never heard of the movie, the author or his work. I simply Google'd him and copied and pasted what I thought was interesting. I really hate people who try and force their opinions on me and mine, no matter what the subject matter is.
I thought it looked pretty interesting too, reading the synopsis of the trilogy on Barnes and Noble....
Its literature. Its not your god, its their god. its some mythological god that has no bearing on our universe... why are you all up in arms about killing it in a book? You do realize none of this happened, right? And that the characters (including god in this book) are all fictional?
Quote: Originally Posted by Pickle I have not read the book so I can't confirm either way. However, Wikipedia states that the novel denigrates organized religion and the abuse of power in the Catholic Church. Kind of interesting to me ----- Isn't Nicole Kidman - the star of the movie - Catholic???
Yep, I said the same thing. And Harvey, like I said I just though it would be worthy to let folks know. Like myself, I am researching this and will make my own mind up. I really don't give a rats you know what who sees the movie. Can we not discuss anything on these boards anymore without *** ***** trying to make more out of it than a discussion? Why so hostile, get a grip! I did do a little research so far and thought some things I've read are pretty interesting to say the least.
That is what always confused me about The Da Vinci Code. Also off the subject a bit, sorry. But I could never understand why all those churches had to have all those seminars about the evil Da Vinci Code. That was also sold in the fiction section. Well, I do know why they had the seminars but it was irritating all the same.
I found some of the the things he said below interesting...I just don't understand why he hated the Narnia books so much? I thought they were great and so did the kiddo's? [The Mail on Sunday, 27 January 2002, p.63] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In the week that a children’s writer who claims God is dead and the Church is wicked wins a prestigious literary prize…[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]This is the most dangerous author in Britain.[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Philip Pullman is being hailed as the new C. S. Lewis after being awarded the Whitbread Book of the Year prize for his latest novel aimed at children: The Amber Spyglass. The judges described it as visionary, but PETER HITCHENS reveals that the author appears to have his own sinister agenda…[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The atheists have driven God out of the classroom and off the TV and the radio, and done a pretty good job of expelling him from the churches as well. But one stubborn and important pocket of Christianity survives, in the Narnia stories of C. S. Lewis. Now here comes an opportunity to dethrone him and supplant his books with others which proclaim the death of God to the young.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]If you are wondering why the children's author Philip Pullman has collected a major prize and why such a huge fuss is being made of him, now you know. He is the anti-Lewis, the one the atheists would have been praying for, if atheists prayed.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Children instinctively like Lewis's enthralling stories and often do not even notice their religious message, though it frequently goes deep into their minds and emerges later. How infuriating this is for liberal but literate parents, the sort of people who work for the BBC and want all the advantages of a Christian culture without the tiresome bother of having to worship a God they think they are too smart to believe in. Spotting this trend, Lewis's publishers last year toyed with producing 'sequels' without any Christian references, but retreated under a barrage of thunderbolts from Lewis supporters.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Until now, liberal, atheist parents have had to buy the Narnia books, reading them out loud to their young between clenched teeth, hoping the messages of faith, forgiveness, grace and resurrection do not get through. Now at last they have an alternative and an antidote, the supposedly brilliant Pullman, who - according to the reviewers - is a new Lewis and a new Chekhov rolled into one.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Of his three famous children's books, the first two, Northern Lights and The Subtle Knife, are captivating and clever, but the third, which took the Whitbread prize, is a disappointing clunker with some gruesome and needlessly nasty scenes. This is probably because The Amber Spyglass - in which God dies - is too loaded down with propaganda to leave enough room for the story. None of the trilogy is a patch on any of the Narnia chronicles. You can't help wondering if the praise and the prizes, handed out by reliable, liberal establishment sorts such as Channel 4 News's Jon Snow, are because of Pullman's views as much as his writing. For Pullman has said: 'I hate the Narnia books, and I hate them with deep and bitter passion, with their view of childhood as a golden age from which sexuality and adulthood are a falling-away.'[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]He knows perfectly well what he is doing. He openly and rightly believes storytelling can be a form of moral propaganda: 'All stories teach, whether the storyteller intends them to or not. They teach the world we create. They teach the morality we live by. They teach it much more effectively than moral precepts and instructions... We don't need lists of rights and wrongs, tables of do's and don'ts: we need books, time and silence. "Thou shalt not" is soon forgotten.'[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Pullman has said many times that he thinks God is dead. Since he cannot know if this is true, it raises the question of whether he also hopes that God is dead.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]He told an Oxford literary conference in August 2000: 'We're used to the Kingdom of Heaven; but you can tell from the genera thrust of the book that I'm of the devil's party, like Milton. And I think it's time we thought about a republic of Heaven instead of the Kingdom of Heaven. The King is dead. That's to say I believe the King is dead. I'm an atheist. But we need Heaven nonetheless, we need all the things that Heaven meant, we need joy, we need a sense of meaning and purpose in our lives, we need a connection with the universe, we need all the things the Kingdom of Heaven used to promise us but failed to deliver.'[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]None of this makes sense. If there is no God, then who makes the rules of the supernatural world which Pullman creates, in which people have visible souls called daemons; magic knives cut holes between the worlds and spectres devour life? How is it that the dead live on in a ghastly underworld of unending misery and torment, yet there is no Heaven?[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In his worlds, the Church is wicked, cruel and child-hating; priests are sinister, murderous or drunk. Political correctness creeps in leadenly. There is a brave African king and a pair of apparently homosexual angels. The one religious character who turns out to be benevolent is that liberal favourite, an ex-nun who has renounced her vows and lost her faith. Even so, she sets out on a perilous journey when ordered to do so by angels, who speak to her through a computer.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Pullman, like Lewis, lives in Oxford, though a long way from the outlying suburb where the creator of Namia once dwelt and is now buried. A good thing, probably. The sound of Lewis chuckling from his grave at the idea of angels speaking to a renegade nun through a computer might get on Pullman's nerves.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]peter.hitchens@mailonsunday.co.uk [/FONT]
The problem here is how you started this discussion. By telling us to avoid the movie, and blah blah killing the god, and so on and so fourth. Bad movie, don't go, but its ok that it comes from me cuz i took it from an email which leaves me with no content responsibility; After all i didn't write it... so don't yell at me. Heres a discussion starter: title: "The Golden Compass (Movie)" Body: "Anybody hear anything about this movie? I just got an email that claims its very controversial, and i'm interested in finding out more."
Okay, I agree with that, I started the thread wrong, I should have said that before I posted the email. I agree.
Its a two hour movie based on fantasy. I really dont see how a two hour movie, no matter what message it will portray, will change the mind of anyone who has a strong influence from their church, family, etc. It's fiction. I personally can't wait to see it, it does look really good! (Thanks Cleo for posting the movie trailer link!) Also, I thought Nicole Kidman was a Scientologist? I think she's an amazing actress but I really dont know all that much about her personal life.
Self-worship is the religion of choice in Hollywood. As for the movie...I've seen enough of its creator to know that I am not giving him any of my money. I'm entitled to that.
Being raised as a Catholic (attending 8 years of parochial school) and having an Orthodox Jew as an after school baby sitter for 6 years I was force fed religion as my course of creation faith. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a knowledge of theology I do not regret having. But, it did nothing for my want to gain knowledge outside that bubble of ignoring science and it’s theories. As I see religion based groups denouncing science and it’s findings I see more and more youth wavering from obtaining knowledge of either belief. And that is not good. I do believe that, "something or someone eternal", created our universe. I do not believe in the "Big Bang" theory. But I also do not believe in a God as organized religion presents him, her or it. If you look around, every day things are created thru a modeling effect. Specie, and even enert matter, is self-replicating. Either aspect, spirituality or big bang, are faith-based beliefs at this point in our understanding of the universe. I’ve always been intrigued by both sides. It’s what led to my reading some pretty boring papers on, quantum cosmology, loop quantum gravity, cyclic universe and many more. After all this time I’ve come to the belief that our universe is a process of what is around us, self-replication, one universe creating another and another and so on. And even that belief doesn’t lead you to the “beginning.” They say we will obtain the knowledge and technology to answer this inconsistency in beliefs by the year 2050. I don’t think either side is going to be happy with the answer. I’d love to be here then, but I don’t think I’ll make it.