Ban this children's movie...

[sisterchristian]

Cute story. It's not true.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/atheist.asp

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/ ... oliday.htm

I have a lot of atheist friends with whom I discuss religion and politics regularly and I honestly can't think of one that wishes to have holidays banned, or one that thinks that holidays in of themselves are discriminatory. This is unfounded rhetoric either based on fear or meant to propagate fear of atheists.

~Kelli

Oh but it is true because only a FOOL says in his heart "there is no God"! :smt009 :smt102

 

[VaultZero4Me]

nope :smt104

why do you ask? :smt104

you no scary... :smt015

Suggestion, learn what a rhetorical question is.

Fear is an emotional response to a sense of feeling threatened. If you fear someone, than you feel they threaten you in some way.

Now, if you fear someone because they claim there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of any gods, than one doesn't have to guess the reasons for the fear. It is quite obvious.

 

[6640]

You may already know about this kids movie coming out in December starring Nicole Kid man. It's called The Golden Compass, and while it will be a watered down version of the book, it is based on a trilogy of children's books about killing God. The author is a self professed atheist. Please click on this link or cut and paste it. From what I understand, the hope is to get a lot of kids to see the movie during the Christmas holiday. The quotes from the author sum it all up.


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

I thought it would be a good idea to quote the first post in hopes of getting back on the idea of the book. I think this topic had a bad title that provoked more of a debate about Christians banning books and movies than a discussion about the movie.

 

[geekgirlkelli]

Oh but it is true because only a FOOL says in his heart "there is no God"! :smt009 :smt102

So the story about the judge is true because of a couple of verses from Psalms?

~Kelli

 

[sisterchristian]

Oh but it is true because only a FOOL says in his heart "there is no God"! :smt009 :smt102

So the story about the judge is true because of a couple of verses from Psalms?

~Kelli

No just the part about A fool says in his heart..... but here is another cute story for you...


An Atheist in the Woods.....



An atheist was walking through the woods.
"What majestic trees"!
"What powerful rivers"!
"What beautiful animals"!
He said to himself.

As he was walking alongside the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly bear charge towards him.

He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder & saw that the bear was closing in on him.

He looked over his shoulder again, & the bear was even closer. He tripped & fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw that the bear was right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw & raising his right paw to strike him.

At that instant the Atheist cried out, "Oh my God!"

Time Stopped.
The bear froze.
The forest was silent.

As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky. "You deny my existence for all these years, teach others I don't exist and even credit creation to cosmic accident." "Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer"?
The atheist looked directly into the light, "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps you could make the BEAR a Christian"?

"Very Well," said the voice.

The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed. And the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together, bowed his head & spoke:
"Lord bless this food, which I am about to receive from thy bounty through Christ our Lord, Amen."
_________________

 

[handy]

I think that 6640 has a good idea and perhaps we could get back to the topic of the thread.

Sisterchristian, I am curious, is your intent really to try to get an actual ban on the movie, or just spur a lot of discussion regarding the intentions of the author?

I am curious, because as both a Christain and an American, I find the idea of banning any book abhorent.

(Well, I guess maybe there might be some books that would be worthy of being banned. Considering some of the stuff posted lately, there are times when an out and out ban isn't such a bad thing.)

 

[VaultZero4Me]

No just the part about A fool says in his heart..... but here is another cute story for you...


An Atheist in the Woods.....



An atheist was walking through the woods.
"What majestic trees"!
"What powerful rivers"!
"What beautiful animals"!
He said to himself.

As he was walking alongside the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly bear charge towards him.

He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder & saw that the bear was closing in on him.

He looked over his shoulder again, & the bear was even closer. He tripped & fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw that the bear was right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw & raising his right paw to strike him.

At that instant the Atheist cried out, "Oh my God!"

Time Stopped.
The bear froze.
The forest was silent.

As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky. "You deny my existence for all these years, teach others I don't exist and even credit creation to cosmic accident." "Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer"?
The atheist looked directly into the light, "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps you could make the BEAR a Christian"?

"Very Well," said the voice.

The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed. And the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together, bowed his head & spoke:
"Lord bless this food, which I am about to receive from thy bounty through Christ our Lord, Amen."

This story is very silly, and on some level repugnant.

It portrays that God would intervene when an atheist cries out his name just to be vengeful and teach him a lesson.

It completely makes light (though unintentional) of all the suffering people in the world that do call his name out, but still suffer horrible deaths and die (Aids, cancer (watched my praying aunt die a horrible death while her family watched and prayed for help from God), leukemia, malaria, famine, butchery in the Sudan, brutal rape and torture, must I go on?)

But go ahead and post stories like this. It isn't received by anyone of a discerning mind as a funny story portraying the "no atheist in a fox hole" view. It just partly discredits your sincerity and reinforces the diabolical image of God portrayed in the OT.

 

[cyberjosh]

There actually is a site that evaluates movies from a Christian perspective, but I can't think of it at the moment...

You're probably thinking of pluggedinonline. I use it all the time. What I like best is that they put everything, positive, negative, spiritual, even down to how many bad word there are. They do a conclusion, but there's always enough information that I can make up my own mind regarding the movie. I highly recommend it.

It's associated with Dobson's Focus on the Family site.

I might actually wait a week or so to see a review first in fact before I definately decide to watch it, because I learned something about the plot synopsis which strikes me as odd, people's souls turn into animals and they battle that way - I guess that's what the Polar Bears are. Sounds a little out there....

 

[6640]

I might actually wait a week or so to see a review first in fact before I definately decide to watch it, because I learned something about the plot synopsis which strikes me as odd, people's souls turn into animals and they battle that way - I guess that's what the Polar Bears are. Sounds a little out there....

I heard something like that too. I think they are called daemons. That seemed unusual to me because if you take out the, a, you get demon. Perhaps someone who has read the book could elaborate on that.
daemon
demon?

 

[OfficerCarson]

this topic got off... well topic

but it seems to have got on with a better understanding

it changed from ban a movie to a death match between athiests and christians, then to please help me understand this movie please.

and i would like to know too if this subject was to say the movie needs to be banned or to stur up talk.



also due to the fact that i am not out to attack anyones beliefs i am going to ask that all my posts before this be disreguarded.

i am not doing this to save shame in my attacks against others but because i wanna see this topic get on track again. also i would ask that my desicioon be honored and anyone that attacks me for doing this would see the true reason for this. i apologize for any feelings that were hurt and anyone that attacked me (not cuase i am better) i forgive you.

also anyone that wishes to give me crap i ask you PM to do thnx

 

[stovebolts]

Banning books or movies is wrong based on our God given freedoms which our country was founded upon.

Personally, I know of an author that is on the banned book list (and he's proud of it), yet I can't find anything that is so terribly wrong let alone morally bad in his books (other than swearing) that I disagree with. BTW, his targeted audience is H.S. students

Here's a collection of snipits that may be of some interest.
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/firstamendme ... ndment.htm

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.

The Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791
“Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime . . . .† Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, dissenting Ginzberg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966)

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.† Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

“First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.â€Ââ€â€Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Ashcroft V. Free Speech Coalition

“Almost all human beings have an infinite capacity for taking things for granted.† Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World

“Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.† U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis (1856–1941), Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357 (1927)

 

[handy]

There actually is a site that evaluates movies from a Christian perspective, but I can't think of it at the moment...

You're probably thinking of pluggedinonline. I use it all the time. What I like best is that they put everything, positive, negative, spiritual, even down to how many bad word there are. They do a conclusion, but there's always enough information that I can make up my own mind regarding the movie. I highly recommend it.

It's associated with Dobson's Focus on the Family site.

I might actually wait a week or so to see a review first in fact before I definately decide to watch it, because I learned something about the plot synopsis which strikes me as odd, people's souls turn into animals and they battle that way - I guess that's what the Polar Bears are. Sounds a little out there....

Here is a review that pluggedin did on the book series as it is related to the movie:

http://www.pluggedinonline.com/thisweek ... 003516.cfm


6640 you asked:

I heard something like that too. I think they are called daemons. That seemed unusual to me because if you take out the, a, you get demon. Perhaps someone who has read the book could elaborate on that.

According to the review that I posted above, the daemons are pronounced "demon" and represent the embodiment of a person's soul. In the book, the Nicole Kidman character, who is a representative of the church, is in the business of separating children from their daemon.

As I've said before, I wouldn't ban this movie or the books, and I'll defend the right of anyone to write it, direct it, act in it, read it and watch it.

But, I'm not going read the books or watch the movies and they won't be allowed in the house. They will be "banned" from our house at least, just like the DaVinci Code was. I did read the DaVinci Code, because I just thought it was about Jesus and Mary being married and having a kid. The fact that Jesus and Mary were also the 'god' and 'goddess' of some kind of fertility cult was somehow left out of the reviews that I had read of the book. Should have checked out PluggedIn before reading that one. Oh well.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

The main symbolism of the book series is that the church (mainly the ones centered around Abrahamic-God) is bad and has corrupted everyone. Humanism and naturalism is the only way to get the world on track and make a better, less violent and corrupt future.

Don't know that I believe that. Murderer - theism = Murdering atheist, IMO opinion. Anyone can bend their ethic system around to meet their own desires. Secular or theistic.

I apologize if I hijacked the thread at all. Not my intent.

 

[OfficerCarson]

i am not here to bash heads just to point out ... well points in the review :o

and do get all angry at me there is a non christian review at the bottom :o

The Golden Compass begins with a precocious 12-year-old girl named Lyra clambering into a wardrobe to avoid detection. What she sees and overhears through its doors launches her into a universe-altering adventure. (Sound familiar?) In the room outside, her uncle, an iconoclastic explorer named Lord Asriel, begins to describe a mysterious substance called Dust to a group of scholars. ...
Once she reemerges, the drama quickly starts to pile up: Lyra is given a truth-telling device called an alethiometer (the golden compass) and told to keep it secret; she begins to hear rumors of children disappearing without a trace; and she's whisked into the care of a glamorous but ruthless agent of the church named Mrs. Coulter. Lyra soon discovers that the church is also desperate to learn about Dustâ€â€a substance they believe is somehow connected to original sinâ€â€and that Mrs. Coulter is spearheading chilling experiments on children in her pursuit of "truth." Specifically, she's separating children from their dæmons (pronounced demon), animal spirits that physically embody each person's soul and accompany them throughout life.
As The Golden Compass draws to a close, the forces of good (represented by the church-rejecting Lord Asriel) have begun to array themselves against the forces of tyranny and wickedness (represented by Mrs. Coulter and churchmen who blend the worst of, say, the Spanish Inquisition and Adolf Hiter's dreaded SS). The battle will span not only Lyra's world, but many other alternate worlds. In Vol. 2, The Subtle Knife, Lyra meets 12-year-old Will, who comes into possession of a potent blade with the power to slice portals between those worlds. The Amber Spyglass concludes the series, with angels, armored bears, witches, a shaman, a lapsed nun-turned-physicist and other fantastical creatures marshalling their resources against the hated Authorityâ€â€the "god" whose reign they can tolerate no longerâ€â€even as the mystery of Dust is finally resolved.

The Anti-Lewis
There are no shortage of parallels between His Dark Materials and C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia series. Lyra instead of Lucy. A wardrobe. Alternate worlds. Talking animals. Cosmic consequences linked to a final battle. Oh, and witchesâ€â€this time on the side of so-called good rather than evil.
But beyond those superficial similarities, Pullman represents the polar opposite of Lewis. Pullman has repeatedlyâ€â€and with apparent gleeâ€â€lashed out at both Lewis and the faith he represents. "I hate the Narnia books, and I hate them with a deep and bitter passion," he told one interviewer, "with their view of childhood as a golden age from which sexuality and adulthood are a falling-away."
Such venom isn't the exception when it comes to Pullman's stance on all things Christian. He told the U.K.'s Daily Telegraph, "Atheism suggests a degree of certainty that I'm not quite willing to accede. I suppose technically, you'd have to put me down as an agnostic. But if there is a God, and he is as the Christians describe him, then he deserves to be put down and rebelled against. As you look back over the history of the Christian church, it's a record of terrible infamy and cruelty and persecution and tyranny. How they have the bloody nerve to go on Thought for the Day and tell us all to be good when, given the slightest chance, they'd be hanging the rest of us and flogging the homosexuals and persecuting the witches."
Given such ferocious antipathy for Christianity, it's only a matter of time before those beliefs sneak into heavy-handed sermonettes, delivered by the story's protagonists, such as this one from a witch: "There are churches there, believe me, that cut their children too, as the people of Bolvangar didâ€â€not in the same way, but just as horribly. They cut their sexual organs, yes, both boys and girls; they cut them with knives so that they shan't feel. That is what the church does, and every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling." Without exception, Pullman characterizes churches and anyone connected to them as agents of wickedness, oppression, torture, murder and malevolence.

A Tale of Two Insights
Still, Pullman wants his readers to believe he's more interested in telling a good story (and his is engaging at points) than delivering a particular message. On his personal Web site, he writes, "The meaning of a story emerges in the meeting between the words on the page and thoughts in the reader's mind. So when people ask me what I meant by this story, or what was the message I was trying to convey in that one, I have to explain that I'm not going to explain. Anyway, I'm not in the message business; I'm in the 'Once upon a time' business."
Don't believe him.
Not the least because Pullman contradicts himself when he talks about his understanding of how stories naturally influence people's beliefs. "All stories teach," he's said, "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."
That is a more honest and insightful statement than the first one.
Therefore, it's a fair question for those curious about this story to ask what it is teaching. At the most basic level, His Dark Materials is an attempted refutation of the Christian faith: "The Christian religion is a very powerful and convincing mistake, that's all," says an influential character named Mary Malone, who then goes on to relate her own "testimony" of why she abandoned her calling as a nun.
Other messages woven into this story exalt witchcraft, evolution, divination, homosexuality and premarital sex. Accompanying them are smoking, drinking, occasional mild profanity and moments of visceral violence.

also i find this interesting may i qoute

But if there is a God, and he is as the Christians describe him, then he deserves to be put down and rebelled against.

:smt104 sorry but i really wanna kick the guy :smt093

also this next qoute is from a non christian review

While the good guys' souls are represented by puppies, rabbits and other friendly creatures, the villains' Daemons are typically insects, rodents and the like.

when you see the movie this should help you out some :smt023

Kidman gets ample opportunity to strut about in all her glamorously evil glory, and a scene in which she smacks her baboon daemonâ€â€and then coddles the creature with entreaties of loveâ€â€amusingly casts the intolerant (and aptly named) Coulter as a better-dressed version of Margot at the Wedding's titular mommy dearest. Even Kidman's ravishing villainess, though, plays second fiddle to the film's make-believe gibberish, which focuses most intently on the plight of Iorek Byrnison, an exiled warrior polar bear (voiced by Ian McKellen) who does little other than drink whiskey, fight, and roar in countless close-ups.

http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=3366

:smt018 that is my opion don't attack my for it :smt018

besides that the review pretty much says it is a corn by product :smt015

go see it if you want just giving some info. :smt040

hope it helps :x-mas:

 

[bartdanr]

Just let me add my $0.02 on the information presented so far...

(1) It would be singularily naive to suggest that this was not thinly disguised atheistic (really, antitheistic) propoganda, just as it would be naive to suggest that the Chronicles of Narnia were just a story and any resemblance to Christianity was just a coincidence.

(2) I think censorship is bad on many levels, not just because it's unconstitutional, but because it's morally repugnant to supress thought and expression of thought. If God allows people to express such hatred for Him, who am I to try to stifle it?

(3) I do not plan to see the movie or buy the books, in that I want to vote with my pocketbook that this is not something I want to support. I may check the books out of the library in order to learn more, but I don't have a great desire to do so.

(4) Pullman may think that "killing God" is just a neat expression about killing what he considers a bad philosophy. However, I think the other poster who compared it to making a story about killing someone's beloved father hit the nail on the head. Pullman needs to be prepared for such a reaction (though violence or threats of violence are beyond the pale) as expressed by Christians. Sure, you have the freedom to even release a movie about killing the President, the Pope or my mother; but don't expect to be beloved for doing so.

(5) I'm amazed at the parallel between what Pullman is and what, at one time, I wanted to be. I really wanted to be "the anti-Lewis" and write a fantasy novel similar to his own (I even worked on it, though I didn't get very far). I completely understand where he's coming from. And, in so far his criticism of the Church is correct, we should humbly acknowledge it and realize our errors. The blood on our hands is one of the prime reasons (or perhaps excuses, but nonetheless a valid criticism) why people become atheists.

(6) Christians who get hot and bothered--hey, I totally understand where you are coming from. But expressions about banning the books or the movie, or expressing desires for violence (like "I really want to hit this guy") not only plays into his already well-established hatred of Christianity, but also is repugnant to Christ and his teachings, and actually drives you further from God while you think you are being so zealous for Him.

God bless!

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Good points.

You also may have to consider the fact that the views are expressed strongly in order to elicit the type of response that he describes within the books them self. Now, not all have responded that way, but unfortunately, a loud minority sounds bigger than the majority.

 

[happiejack00]

One of the first problems I see with this movie how they introduce Demons to our children. Go to the actual movie website and it invites a person to make their own demon personality. It tells them how a person represents a demon and how that person should act and feel. Now Jesus cast out demons and tells us to. Not to invite them in.

As far as banning any movie or book that is wrong for America in general. But as christians this movie is wrong for us. I think parents should just read a little about it, look on the website and see what is offered there and then guide their children and other adults not to see this movie because as christians we know how dangerous playing with demons can be.

Of course quite a few parents will not check it out at all, and will let their children and teens go see anything they choose. They never check to see what they see at the movies or what they read. The next few years are going to be very scary if we have people inviting demons into their life.

 

[Voyageur]

Great book.

The Golden Compass isn't merely an anti-Church/anti-Christian polemic. If any of you had taken the time to actually read the book, you'd know that Pullman also concerns himself with power in all its guises. That is: the power of religion over the individual, the power of conformity over free thought, the power of irrational fear used to confound the masses, the unchecked power adults have over children (and more importantly, children's minds), the power of unchecked ambition.

What Pullman is really writing about is humanity. What do humans do when they fear an idea or way of thinking? They array themselves against it; sometimes peacefully, but often times violently. This is what the Catholic Church did with the Inquisition and anyone who they believe has heretical thoughts. Pullman essentially asks, 'what gives religious officials the right to trumpet the misplaced idea of absolute truth, when in fact there is no actual way to prove an absolute truth--and also considering religion's history of documented violent tendencies?'

Read the book and ask yourself these questions...

 

[handy]

Here is a review of the movie itself:

http://www.pluggedinonline.com/movies/m ... 003536.cfm

And here is a non-religious interview with the author Philip Pullman by the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... -2001Feb18?

 

[handy]

And, BTW, just because I totally hate it when someone deliberately misrepresents another's work, Philip Pullman was just plain wrong in his assessement of what happened to Susan in the Narnia books.

Pullman said:

In the final Narnia book, "The Last Battle," the older girl is excluded from salvation because she has become too interested in lipstick, nylons and invitations. "In other words, she's growing up. She's entering adulthood," says Pullman. "Now this for Lewis, was something . . . so dreadful and so redolent of sin that he had to send her to Hell. I find that appalling."

First of all, Susan did not go to hell. She simply remained in the shadow lands. One of the main themes in the Narnia books is "Once a King or Queen in Narnia, always a King or Queen in Narnia." Peter, Edmund and Lucy die and remain in the real Narnia for eternity. Susan is left behind on earth, the shadow earth. Not dead, not hopeless for salvation and certainly not excluded from salvation. Just not represented as entering in salvation. Lewis never resolved what Susan's final end is, but he certainly didn't consign her to hell.

Why? Not because of growing up and entering adulthood. Lucy makes the remark regarding the lipstick, nylons and invitations, but that was only one part of Susan's problem. Susan's real issue is that she turns her back on her first love, and turns instead to shallow worldliness. Susan represents one who struggles with perservering in faith. The first sign of this struggle is actually in "Prince Caspian" when she believes that Lucy sees Aslan, but chose to ignore Lucy and pretend she didn't believe her because she was weary.

Just wanted to get that off my chest! Pullman is entitled to his view's, but he should at least be accurate in his quotes.