Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Avatar -- Bringing in the New Age Religion
- Thread starter NJBeliever
- Start date
NJBeliever
Member
jasoncran said:
In all this I still have not heard you actually address the subject of the thread, Avatar. Do you think this is a good movie from a Christian standpoint?
Nick
Member
In Australia we have this organisation called Centre for Public Christianity, which is an organisation of devoted Christian leaders and scholars promoting Christian values in the community. I found this interesting video review of Avatar: http://www.publicchristianity.com/Videos/avatar.html
Here is the text transcript:
For a fan of the work of director James Cameron, Avatar just about hits all the right spots. Avatar is like a mix tape of Cameron’s greatest hits, with its environmental themes evoking his earlier film The Abyss (1989), and its story—of corporate desire to exploit aliens for profit—feeling familiar if you’ve seen Aliens (1986). Even the military hardware of Avatar looks like a futuristic version of what we’ve seen previously—the exosuit cargo-loader in particular. In Aliens, Ripley used it to beat up the Alien Queen—only this time in Avatar the alien wins. Nice.
And so for me, watching Cameron’s latest outing was incredibly familiar, and all the more enjoyable for it. But with Avatar, Cameron has introduced a new theme to his oeuvre: pantheism—the worship of nature
Avatar shares with The Abyss, the idea that aliens can best teach humans about the value of protecting our planet. Where Avatar goes one better is in adding a spiritual dimension to nature and deeming it worthy of worship. For the Na’vi—the indigenous tribe to Pandora—the world is not only ‘charged with the grandeur of God’ (as the English poet Hopkins would say) but pretty much is God. The Na’vi call her Eywa.
In the film, trees exist as a kind of channel between the Na’vi and Eywa, their “great Motherâ€. All the sacred places of Na’vi culture involve trees: aside from Hometree (where the Na’vi call home), there’s the Tree of Souls and the Tree of Memories. These are trees that store with Eywa the souls of both Na’vi- and animal-dead, and trees in which the soul of the planet and its inhabitants is recorded, and that allow memories to be uploaded and downloaded at will. But trees are only one aspect of the Na’vi’s cosmology. The Na’vi perceive themselves as completely bound up with their environment, other living beings, and Eywa. The whole planet, it is suggested, is an interconnected network—practically a living, breathing organism in its own right.
Some may dismiss this aspect of the film because of the way it sees God as part of the creation rather than distinct from it. In fact, Avatar attracted the criticism of The Vatican’s official newspaper for precisely this reason. L’Osservatore Romano called the film a bland, unoriginal, emotionally-unengaging, spiritual mess that replaces god with nature. Yet I, for one, am really interested in what the film says about connection being fundamental to existence: connection between people, between all living creatures, between humans and God. In the film, these ideas are mapped onto the pantheism of the Na’vi, but I want to differentiate between pantheism—that essentially sees God as continuous with nature—and what I see as a better kind of connection—one that implies a personal relationship between distinct entities.
At the start of Avatar Jake is adrift, without family, physically and emotionally paralysed. He says that “All I ever wanted was a single thing worth fighting forâ€. Because he’s the hero of the story, we’re supposed to identify with him. Jake is actually the audience’s avatar, and when he speaks of his own spiritual emptiness, he’s actually diagnosing ours: our search for meaning and purpose. The Na’vi, of course, have meaning and purpose in spades—and community, as well—and it’s all largely due to the way they live and breathe Eywa in the world around them. Part of this is precisely what attracts Jake to their way of life.
The film, in other words, preps us to find in deities like Eywa the answer to our deepest needs for connection. Yet if Eywa is everywhere, she is also nowhere at the same time. And this is the big problem I have with Cameron’s depiction of his nature-god. Even though Eywa is a god whose very basis is connection between all living things; this kind of connection doesn’t go far enough.
In effect, what Cameron has done is depict god without religion. If religion consists of a set of beliefs and practices, it involves drawing boundaries around what you believe in—a task that then provides a moral framework to guide action in the world. Boundary-drawing is not about being closed to new and different ideas (though that has been, and continues to be, a result of such an exercise) but about being sure of what you know and believe in.
The spiritual beliefs of Avatar are poached from a variety of spiritual traditions. The belief system of the Na’vi borrows from Native American spiritualities, New Age beliefs, Hinduism, Buddhism, as well as the Judeo-Christian story of the Messiah—the one who saves. Such a combination of different traditions may please the pluralist, but this kind of pluralism also turns spirituality into a consumer experience. The individual, in this case, is free to pick and choose what she or he wants to believe in; leaving out parts they don’t like.
The problem with this exercise is that the individual risks worshipping themselves—the god created in their own image. And while this approach may prove satisfying in the meantime, it is unclear how comforting it ultimately is. If anything, it sounds quite lonely. Rather than uniting people by embracing all beliefs, this sort of pluralism makes people into individual units, all with their own belief systems, and each acting in accordance with those beliefs. It’s kind of ironic, given that Avatar is all about connection.
What Avatar lacks is a personal god with whom it is possible to have an actual relationship. A god who goes into battle for you—you as an individual—and not just because you’re part of the life-force that makes up the planet. Sure, Eywa ultimately gets the native animals to fight in defense of Pandora. But it’s said in the film that Eywa doesn’t “take sidesâ€, which implies that Eywa is a god who is normally remote, detached and impersonal. Other scenes from the film suggest that being with Eywa requires some sort of merge where that person is absorbed, indistinguishably, into Eywa. And once that individual is incorporated, the only trace of their individuality to be found is in the disembodied whispers of the Trees of Memories and Souls.
The Christian worldview is not one in which individuals disappear into God or become the stuff of stardust. It’s also one that honours the human form, and doesn’t treat it like something we will one day discard. We were created, according to the Bible, to bear the image of God (Genesis 1: 26-7), and it’s on that basis that we are to relate and connect with God. This suggests that God is a personal being who likes to relate to us personally.
I find that the final scene of Avatar is my favourite: where Jake is fully accepted into the Na’vi community. It’s interesting that Cameron decided that an image that reaffirms the beauty of connection between personal beings would best end the film. I may not agree with Cameron’s ideas about of God, but we’re in agreement on this account. In my opinion, the image of Jake waking up to his new life, surrounded by family and friends, is an image that Avatar gets completely right.
Dr Justine Toh teaches cultural studies at Macquarie University
Here is the text transcript:
For a fan of the work of director James Cameron, Avatar just about hits all the right spots. Avatar is like a mix tape of Cameron’s greatest hits, with its environmental themes evoking his earlier film The Abyss (1989), and its story—of corporate desire to exploit aliens for profit—feeling familiar if you’ve seen Aliens (1986). Even the military hardware of Avatar looks like a futuristic version of what we’ve seen previously—the exosuit cargo-loader in particular. In Aliens, Ripley used it to beat up the Alien Queen—only this time in Avatar the alien wins. Nice.
And so for me, watching Cameron’s latest outing was incredibly familiar, and all the more enjoyable for it. But with Avatar, Cameron has introduced a new theme to his oeuvre: pantheism—the worship of nature
Avatar shares with The Abyss, the idea that aliens can best teach humans about the value of protecting our planet. Where Avatar goes one better is in adding a spiritual dimension to nature and deeming it worthy of worship. For the Na’vi—the indigenous tribe to Pandora—the world is not only ‘charged with the grandeur of God’ (as the English poet Hopkins would say) but pretty much is God. The Na’vi call her Eywa.
In the film, trees exist as a kind of channel between the Na’vi and Eywa, their “great Motherâ€. All the sacred places of Na’vi culture involve trees: aside from Hometree (where the Na’vi call home), there’s the Tree of Souls and the Tree of Memories. These are trees that store with Eywa the souls of both Na’vi- and animal-dead, and trees in which the soul of the planet and its inhabitants is recorded, and that allow memories to be uploaded and downloaded at will. But trees are only one aspect of the Na’vi’s cosmology. The Na’vi perceive themselves as completely bound up with their environment, other living beings, and Eywa. The whole planet, it is suggested, is an interconnected network—practically a living, breathing organism in its own right.
Some may dismiss this aspect of the film because of the way it sees God as part of the creation rather than distinct from it. In fact, Avatar attracted the criticism of The Vatican’s official newspaper for precisely this reason. L’Osservatore Romano called the film a bland, unoriginal, emotionally-unengaging, spiritual mess that replaces god with nature. Yet I, for one, am really interested in what the film says about connection being fundamental to existence: connection between people, between all living creatures, between humans and God. In the film, these ideas are mapped onto the pantheism of the Na’vi, but I want to differentiate between pantheism—that essentially sees God as continuous with nature—and what I see as a better kind of connection—one that implies a personal relationship between distinct entities.
At the start of Avatar Jake is adrift, without family, physically and emotionally paralysed. He says that “All I ever wanted was a single thing worth fighting forâ€. Because he’s the hero of the story, we’re supposed to identify with him. Jake is actually the audience’s avatar, and when he speaks of his own spiritual emptiness, he’s actually diagnosing ours: our search for meaning and purpose. The Na’vi, of course, have meaning and purpose in spades—and community, as well—and it’s all largely due to the way they live and breathe Eywa in the world around them. Part of this is precisely what attracts Jake to their way of life.
The film, in other words, preps us to find in deities like Eywa the answer to our deepest needs for connection. Yet if Eywa is everywhere, she is also nowhere at the same time. And this is the big problem I have with Cameron’s depiction of his nature-god. Even though Eywa is a god whose very basis is connection between all living things; this kind of connection doesn’t go far enough.
In effect, what Cameron has done is depict god without religion. If religion consists of a set of beliefs and practices, it involves drawing boundaries around what you believe in—a task that then provides a moral framework to guide action in the world. Boundary-drawing is not about being closed to new and different ideas (though that has been, and continues to be, a result of such an exercise) but about being sure of what you know and believe in.
The spiritual beliefs of Avatar are poached from a variety of spiritual traditions. The belief system of the Na’vi borrows from Native American spiritualities, New Age beliefs, Hinduism, Buddhism, as well as the Judeo-Christian story of the Messiah—the one who saves. Such a combination of different traditions may please the pluralist, but this kind of pluralism also turns spirituality into a consumer experience. The individual, in this case, is free to pick and choose what she or he wants to believe in; leaving out parts they don’t like.
The problem with this exercise is that the individual risks worshipping themselves—the god created in their own image. And while this approach may prove satisfying in the meantime, it is unclear how comforting it ultimately is. If anything, it sounds quite lonely. Rather than uniting people by embracing all beliefs, this sort of pluralism makes people into individual units, all with their own belief systems, and each acting in accordance with those beliefs. It’s kind of ironic, given that Avatar is all about connection.
What Avatar lacks is a personal god with whom it is possible to have an actual relationship. A god who goes into battle for you—you as an individual—and not just because you’re part of the life-force that makes up the planet. Sure, Eywa ultimately gets the native animals to fight in defense of Pandora. But it’s said in the film that Eywa doesn’t “take sidesâ€, which implies that Eywa is a god who is normally remote, detached and impersonal. Other scenes from the film suggest that being with Eywa requires some sort of merge where that person is absorbed, indistinguishably, into Eywa. And once that individual is incorporated, the only trace of their individuality to be found is in the disembodied whispers of the Trees of Memories and Souls.
The Christian worldview is not one in which individuals disappear into God or become the stuff of stardust. It’s also one that honours the human form, and doesn’t treat it like something we will one day discard. We were created, according to the Bible, to bear the image of God (Genesis 1: 26-7), and it’s on that basis that we are to relate and connect with God. This suggests that God is a personal being who likes to relate to us personally.
I find that the final scene of Avatar is my favourite: where Jake is fully accepted into the Na’vi community. It’s interesting that Cameron decided that an image that reaffirms the beauty of connection between personal beings would best end the film. I may not agree with Cameron’s ideas about of God, but we’re in agreement on this account. In my opinion, the image of Jake waking up to his new life, surrounded by family and friends, is an image that Avatar gets completely right.
Dr Justine Toh teaches cultural studies at Macquarie University
jasoncran
Member
from my point i'm not offended by it. i saw pantheism galore in it. i tend to go overboard with the legalistic avoid this or that. so much so that i will stay away from all secular things and be unable to relate to the culture. i try to avoid that.mjjcb said:NJBeliever said:
Did you read the whole thread? Jason clearly gives the stamp of approval. Much to my frustration. :mad
Sorry, Jason... I couldn't resist!
if its bothers me i will say it, that movie didnt. despite that i use to believe in the auras and chakras and such like before salvation.
Ed the Ned said:
I think I agree with Ed the Ned. Avatar, and other films in general that glamorise and promote deceiving ideas and paths, cause me great concern for the vulnerable people who might watch them and be sent further away from God. Its a hard point of view to take, also believing in peoples right to free speech and freedom of expression though
.
SmooLife
The position taken by Ed the Ned and others has to do with Christians and no one else. In America, everyone is allowed to think and communicate pretty much as he pleases, but not to do what he pleases. Americans are restricted by laws. Christians are restricted as to what they can think and do and what they can allow as influences upon their life. That restriction comes from Jesus Christ through the Spirit of God.
What Ed the Ned and others are concerned about are the weak Christians who still can't tell the difference between a movie and real life. For these Christians there is a danger that the movie may influence them to take a wrong turn. These are the babes in Christ and the ones who do not walk according to the Spirit, at least not fully. For one who is mature and those who walk according to the Spirit, there is no problem of discernment. There is nothing wrong with Ed the Ned and others warning of influences that they believe to be detrimental to certain believers. So long as they do try to implement such warnings in the form of a law. Such as, "this movie is bad and thou shalt not watch".
So be careful not to confuse a personal idea of freedom based on American culture and what it means to have freedom in Christ.
In my case, I can not watch movies that have obvious Satanic influences such as the occult movies that have become so popular. I do not watch movies like the Passion of Christ because I do not want to inwardly confuse images of a movie with the images I receive from the Bible through the Spirit of God. It is all according to our state and what Jesus tells us to do. Notice the difference between can not and do not. The can not comes from Jesus. The do not comes from my own understanding. I can watch Avatar without ill effect because I am able to discern the fiction from reality, and because Jesus has allowed me to do so.
JamesG
SmooLife
The position taken by Ed the Ned and others has to do with Christians and no one else. In America, everyone is allowed to think and communicate pretty much as he pleases, but not to do what he pleases. Americans are restricted by laws. Christians are restricted as to what they can think and do and what they can allow as influences upon their life. That restriction comes from Jesus Christ through the Spirit of God.
What Ed the Ned and others are concerned about are the weak Christians who still can't tell the difference between a movie and real life. For these Christians there is a danger that the movie may influence them to take a wrong turn. These are the babes in Christ and the ones who do not walk according to the Spirit, at least not fully. For one who is mature and those who walk according to the Spirit, there is no problem of discernment. There is nothing wrong with Ed the Ned and others warning of influences that they believe to be detrimental to certain believers. So long as they do try to implement such warnings in the form of a law. Such as, "this movie is bad and thou shalt not watch".
So be careful not to confuse a personal idea of freedom based on American culture and what it means to have freedom in Christ.
In my case, I can not watch movies that have obvious Satanic influences such as the occult movies that have become so popular. I do not watch movies like the Passion of Christ because I do not want to inwardly confuse images of a movie with the images I receive from the Bible through the Spirit of God. It is all according to our state and what Jesus tells us to do. Notice the difference between can not and do not. The can not comes from Jesus. The do not comes from my own understanding. I can watch Avatar without ill effect because I am able to discern the fiction from reality, and because Jesus has allowed me to do so.
JamesG
NestForASparrow
Member
I don't remember Indian spirituality being a new age religion.
Kevin Lowery
Member
All I have to say is this.
I very much enjoyed Avatar, it was a very good & well done movie.
And we must respect that fact that it is fiction,
But, it does kinda push the whole "New Age, mother earth, pantheism"
kinda thing on the viewer, and if you look at the movie for what it is, FICTION,
that is okay & is understandable for the story, but if you watch the movie with
a deep mind-set, rather than just watching a well played out story,
your going to get "new age guru, mother earth, pantheism" rubish.
We must take movies for what they are, Fictional stories,
I mean, Star Wars kinda pushes the whole Pantheism thing with the force,
but I don't see Christian complaining about that...
I very much enjoyed Avatar, it was a very good & well done movie.
And we must respect that fact that it is fiction,
But, it does kinda push the whole "New Age, mother earth, pantheism"
kinda thing on the viewer, and if you look at the movie for what it is, FICTION,
that is okay & is understandable for the story, but if you watch the movie with
a deep mind-set, rather than just watching a well played out story,
your going to get "new age guru, mother earth, pantheism" rubish.
We must take movies for what they are, Fictional stories,
I mean, Star Wars kinda pushes the whole Pantheism thing with the force,
but I don't see Christian complaining about that...
NJBeliever
Member
Kevin Lowery said:
Well allow me to complain. Star Wars is just as much a promoter of the New Age as Avatar.
And what we need to remember is seeing something as Fictional is the best way to let it influence you. Our minds are much more open to influence and persuasion when we let out intellectual barriers down. This always happens when we are hearing a "made up story." We are willing to listen to ideas and consider thoughts we'd never spend time on if someone said "this is the truth, I turned blue and went to the planet Pandora last night!", which we would dismiss outright.
There is a great deal of research on the human brain, mind control and subliminal messaging but very. very few people know anything about. We make this presuppositions that we are totally in control of our minds when they are so complex they operate on levels we are not aware of. But marketing companies, entertainment groups, scientists and the military are very aware of these things and use them on a regular basis. So to think that a movie won't have any impact on us if we know it's "make-believe" is not really that accurate based on the Bible or science.