"Golden Compass" is an anti-religion film?
- Thread starter Calabrio
- Start date
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Wrong or right, I.D. purposes that certain aspects (eg the eye) of biology are far to complete to have evolved, changed into, formed from etc. etc. etc. from lesser or simplier forms. That is, the eye could not have just developed from simplier cells, therefore an "intelligence" was responsible in the eye's creation? That "intelligence" is an argument for God, the creator...
Evolution explains how life developed and changed on this planet, it leaves the concept of God out of the equation, that is my point. Can you site somewhere in the Theory of Evolution where it mentions and/or tries to disprove God?
I said I.D. is a scientific spin on Creationism, not Biblical Creationism in of itself, God making man from dirt.
Edit: I should add, I get my "ID" info mainly from http://www.y-origins.com/, I believe this is an honest representation of ID. Am I wrong in thinking that?
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
This is why I don't bother arguing with you. I already offered proof against your claims in the posts I cited. You don't offer any proof for your claims (or against mine), just arogantly assume your claims are true. Everyone on this board sees you for what you are: willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest. Your ignorance is dogma that cannot be challenged. Who is acting more on faith here? The answer is rather obvious. Your "debating" is a joke, and thus worthy of nothing more then mockary. Now, you will excuse me while I go protest a gay marriage with Fred Phelps.
"Wocka, wocka, wocka!"
Always the clown, at least you know your role; that's a plus. Will you bring up irrelevant statistics to support you claims again, while ignorant statistics that directly relate to the topic? Because that truly was special the last time.
What?! Now yer just talkin out yer ass here. If anyone is ignoring info here, it's you. As I said, I have made my arguments, see posts #71, 74, 83, 93, 96 and 99. Your the one ignoring those. read 'em, then we'll talk.
If can't debate considering all relevant possibilities, you can't have an honest debate. You have proven that you won't consider certian possibilities, therefore an honest debate with you is impossible. Prove to me that you have at least looked at information from a point of view you disagree with (without automatically distorting it), and I will debate you.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Prove to you what exactly? When I first heard about I.D., I didn't agree with what little I heard, so I went and read up on it, to educate myself on the subject. Does that example meet your criteria, as I am uncertain what your expectations are exactly?
Now, I said the theory of Evolution does not try to disprove or prove the existence of God; that isn't its purpose. You called me "ignorant" for it. So, can you site something in the theory of Evolution that says, "there is no God" or "there is a God"?
See post to Calabrio #127, if you wish to refute what I said about I.D.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Oh look, it's Mr. Ioftenkneejerkandrunmymouthoff
So, can you site somewhere in the theory of Evolution where it says "there is no God" or "there is a God"?
See post to Calabrio #127, if you wish to refute what I said about I.D.
Also, I'm not in here as much, as I am busy with life, so you'll just have to excuse me, if I don't reply immediately.
I HAVE refuted it!!! see the previous posts I mentioned: #71, 74, 83, 93, 96 and 99. YOU KEEP REFUSING TO READ THOSE POST!!!! You are CHOOSING to stay ignorant there. It is patently obvious to anyone who knows about this that you haven't educated yourself on this. You haven't (and won't) question the assumptions on this that you already have. You just look for ways to justify them, ignoring any facts or logic that counter it. If God himself came down and told you that you were wrong on this, you would refuse to believe him.
I have shown in those posts I mentioned that evolution inherently assumes that God doesn't exist. I proved it by much more then simply making an assertion (as you do), or spinning thr truth (again as you do). I used actual quotes by Darwinists. For once in your life, stop trying to be "clever" (justifying whatever you want to believe through spin, distortion, ignorance and outright lies), and instead be reasonable, looking at things objectively and going where the facts lead you.
I have YET to hear an advocate of intelligent design claim that the science justifies God creating things. The only people saying anything about that are Darwinists, CLAIMING that is what ID advocates think. Can you say, "constructing a staw man argument"?
There is no forgiving what you are doing. If you can't be on here that much, then before you post, you owe it to anyone who has posted on this thread not to ignore their posts! Instead, that is what you are doing and then claiming they haven't made any points in the thread. Either don't post, or inform yourself on the thread, and what facts have been given BEFORE you post. To do otherwise is flat out rude and insulting!!!!
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Ah, I see you've finally met DeVille.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
You assume tht Evolution assumes such and such, that is the difference, talk about a "straw-man", as you said. You're wrong though, Evolution theory 'theorizes' how life "evolved", changed, transformed, proliferated, spread etc. etc. etc. (take your pick) on the planet; what it doesn't do, is speak of God, that ISN'T IT'S PURPOSE.
Just because Darwinism purposes that "life was undirected", that in no way assumes "there if no God", as a blanket generalization.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
I'm sorry, are you F'ing serious? Quit your crying... I'm sure you'll be alright if I take a day or two to reply.
P.S., the fact that I apologized for taking some time and DID reply, should be proof that I don't blantanly "ignore" post, little girl.
Calabrio hasn't replied back to me in 30+ hours, will you cry over that too?
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Ah, I see you've finally met DeVille.
Great, you're crying too... when did you get so sensitive? Re-grow a pair, will ya, I said I was sorry for taking some time in my reply, and I did reply.
As far as ignoring his post, as he claims, he's making his own assumptions on what Evolutin theory purposes; God, or a lack of God, in his case, isn't one of them.
There are enough voices in this thread, mine's redundant.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
My point wasn't that I'm upset because you hadn't, or were taking your time to do so...
You are STILL ignoring my previous posts (#71, 74, 83, 93, 96 and 99), which is rude and insulting, as I said. I took the time to post EVIDENCE for my claims, proving they are not just assumptions on my part. I am not gonna repost that proof just because you are too lazy to backtrack a page or two in this thread. If you are gonna take your sweet time in between posts, you owe it to those of us who HAVE been posting to keep up with the arguments and facts presented. You refusing to do that, then assume I am making assumtions. You are assuming (without checking) that I have nothing worth listening to. If you are gonna be disrepectful then DON'T POST! You aren't adding anything to the debate. Instead, you are distracting from it. Show me some respect (by acknowledging the facts I have presented in posts #71, 74, 83, 93, 96 and 99) and you will get it in return.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Still assuming I see... I followed the debate between you and 'hrmwrm'; it was nothing more than you discrediting Evolution theory, while purposing that I.D. as a more plausible approach. Proving "there is no God” in Evolution, wasn't really a part of it. If you'll notice, I posted my "Evolution theory does try to prove or disprove God etc." post, after those post.
Anyhow, I went back and re-read your posts, #71,74,83,93,96 & 99, in case I missed something. Where do you prove that Evolution theory teaches, or relies on there being "no God" exactly, which post #(s)? Because, like it said, Evolution theory doesn't bring God into the equation, but that doesn't equate to "there is no God", as you assume. Read above, "undirected", doesn't mean "no God", just as "intelligence", doesn't have to mean "God", as you purposed in I.D.
The aspect of I.D. relying on God to function, like I said, I get most of my I.D. info from y-origins, it mentions God and implies God. If you want to say that it solely relies on an "intelligence" for certain aspects, but that intelligence could be anything, from God, advanced beings from another galaxy, to a giant space pinata, then sure, I can't completely counter that.
In your opinion, why do so many Theist support I.D., if that "intelligence" could not be God?
As far as your cries about me being "disrespectful" (which I wasn't, I did read your post), you openly admit to "mocking", and you have a history of acting like a clown when you corner yourself with your own foolery...
Christian groups slam new Kidman children's movie
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071204003305.4utrub9c&show_article=1
Dec 3 08:33 PM US/Eastern
Christian groups are up in arms here over a new children's film starring Nicole Kidman and based on an award-winning novel by British author Philip Pullman, accusing it of being anti-religious.
"The Golden Compass" which opens here Friday is the film version of "The Northern Lights," the first book in Pullman's "Dark Materials" fantasy trilogy aimed at teenage readers.
The books by confirmed agnostic Pullman trace the fate of a young girl, Lyra, as she becomes drawn into an apocalyptic battle of good against evil, meeting a host of strange characters along the way including a polar bear, voiced in the film by Ian McKellan.
Evil in Pullman's books is represented by the church, called the Magisterium, whose acolytes kidnap orphans across England to subject them to horrible experiments in the frozen northern wastelands.
"The Northern Lights" won Pullman the 1995 Carnegie Medal for children's fiction in Britain, and the final volume in his trilogy, "The Amber Spyglass" was the first ever children's novel to be awarded the prestigious British Whitbread Book of the Year award in 2002.
With its 180-million-dollar big budget movie, New Line studios is hoping to repeat the box-office success of its "Lord of the Rings" series.
And it aims to tap into the young audiences of cinema-goers who flocked to the five "Harry Potter" films making them big earners for Warner Bros.
But already "The Golden Compass" is whipping up the same controversy which saw the "Harry Potter" series based on the novels by British author J. K Rowling, accused by some on the religious right of promoting witchcraft.
The author's attack on organized religion has been toned down for the film, in a bid to attract as wide as audience as possible, something director Chris Weitz has acknowledged.
"In the books the Magisterium is a version of the Catholic Church gone wildly astray from its roots," Weitz wrote in the British Daily Telegraph.
But "if that's what you want in the film, you'll be disappointed," he warned.
However, the sanitized version of Pullman's book has failed to appease the Catholic League, which gathers some 350,000 members, and which has already been sending out leaflets denouncing the film.
"The Catholic League wants Christians to stay away from this movie precisely because it knows that the film is bait for the books," said president William Donohue.
"Unsuspecting parents who take their children to see the movie may be impelled to buy the three books as a Christmas present. And no parent who wants to bring their children up in the faith will want any part of these books," he added.
The League already took on the movie world in 2006 to denounce the blockbuster "The Da Vinci Code" and its central tenant that Jesus Christ had a child by Mary Magdalene whose descendants still survive today.
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops however has been more nuanced in its approach warning in a review of "The Golden Compass" of its "anti-clerical subtext, standard genre occult elements, character born out of wedlock, a whiskey-guzzling bear."
But it adds that "taken purely on its own cinematic terms, (it) can be viewed as an exciting adventure story with a traditional struggle between good and evil, and a generalized rejection of authoritarianism."
"The Golden Compass" will be released in some 3,000 cinemas and only 60 have so far refused to screen it, according to the industry daily Variety.
"It's this undisguised anti-religious theme that has numerous groups in a lather, but perhaps more of an issue for some ... will be the film's lack of exciting uplift and the almost unrelievedly nasty treatment of the young characters by a host of aggressively unpleasant elders," Variety added.
Copyright AFP 2007, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071204003305.4utrub9c&show_article=1
Dec 3 08:33 PM US/Eastern
Christian groups are up in arms here over a new children's film starring Nicole Kidman and based on an award-winning novel by British author Philip Pullman, accusing it of being anti-religious.
"The Golden Compass" which opens here Friday is the film version of "The Northern Lights," the first book in Pullman's "Dark Materials" fantasy trilogy aimed at teenage readers.
The books by confirmed agnostic Pullman trace the fate of a young girl, Lyra, as she becomes drawn into an apocalyptic battle of good against evil, meeting a host of strange characters along the way including a polar bear, voiced in the film by Ian McKellan.
Evil in Pullman's books is represented by the church, called the Magisterium, whose acolytes kidnap orphans across England to subject them to horrible experiments in the frozen northern wastelands.
"The Northern Lights" won Pullman the 1995 Carnegie Medal for children's fiction in Britain, and the final volume in his trilogy, "The Amber Spyglass" was the first ever children's novel to be awarded the prestigious British Whitbread Book of the Year award in 2002.
With its 180-million-dollar big budget movie, New Line studios is hoping to repeat the box-office success of its "Lord of the Rings" series.
And it aims to tap into the young audiences of cinema-goers who flocked to the five "Harry Potter" films making them big earners for Warner Bros.
But already "The Golden Compass" is whipping up the same controversy which saw the "Harry Potter" series based on the novels by British author J. K Rowling, accused by some on the religious right of promoting witchcraft.
The author's attack on organized religion has been toned down for the film, in a bid to attract as wide as audience as possible, something director Chris Weitz has acknowledged.
"In the books the Magisterium is a version of the Catholic Church gone wildly astray from its roots," Weitz wrote in the British Daily Telegraph.
But "if that's what you want in the film, you'll be disappointed," he warned.
However, the sanitized version of Pullman's book has failed to appease the Catholic League, which gathers some 350,000 members, and which has already been sending out leaflets denouncing the film.
"The Catholic League wants Christians to stay away from this movie precisely because it knows that the film is bait for the books," said president William Donohue.
"Unsuspecting parents who take their children to see the movie may be impelled to buy the three books as a Christmas present. And no parent who wants to bring their children up in the faith will want any part of these books," he added.
The League already took on the movie world in 2006 to denounce the blockbuster "The Da Vinci Code" and its central tenant that Jesus Christ had a child by Mary Magdalene whose descendants still survive today.
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops however has been more nuanced in its approach warning in a review of "The Golden Compass" of its "anti-clerical subtext, standard genre occult elements, character born out of wedlock, a whiskey-guzzling bear."
But it adds that "taken purely on its own cinematic terms, (it) can be viewed as an exciting adventure story with a traditional struggle between good and evil, and a generalized rejection of authoritarianism."
"The Golden Compass" will be released in some 3,000 cinemas and only 60 have so far refused to screen it, according to the industry daily Variety.
"It's this undisguised anti-religious theme that has numerous groups in a lather, but perhaps more of an issue for some ... will be the film's lack of exciting uplift and the almost unrelievedly nasty treatment of the young characters by a host of aggressively unpleasant elders," Variety added.
Copyright AFP 2007, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium
damn you all turned a movie being anti religious into the jesus is real forum. thats hardcore arguin. props to yall:lol: :lol: :lol: if nobody replies to my smartass remark i wouldnt be surprised.................maybe the next time i get drunk and feel like arguin about the fact that god is a good idea and it teaches good morals and practices, but should not be taken into literal meaning. ill jump on this thread til then peace out.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Is the author an Atheist or Agnostic, now? I know it's stating the obvious, but these religious groups just did the worst thing possible, their protest will only draw crowds to the movie and increase it's profit margin.
Also, this story confirms that the movie is a "clean" version of the book, where some of the more "controversial" aspect are not included. So I really don't see why the religious groups are crying in the first place, cleaned version or no cleaned version, it's a fantasy book, fantasy, he's free to write what he likes, it's not like he's writing about an illegal subject.
When Scorese did "The last temptation of Christ", the church protested and crowds gathered in protest. When Gibson did the Passion, barely (if any) a peep was uttered against it, and that movie cast Jews in a horrible light.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Did you actually see "Passion" or are you just repeating what you heard? Just wondering.
No one argues that he is free to make any book, and that the studios are free to make any film that they want. But the public does have the option of choosing whether they are going to support the product. And if consumers uniformly say that they don't want to support an agenda, that is completely understandable and appropriate.
Most people are offended, not by the fact a movie with anti-religious themes has been released. That's hardly an uncommon occurrence. It's the fact that the story is being marketed in a way to disguise this fact. And the attacks on religion haven't been removed, the director just says that they've been toned down.
"Unsuspecting parents who take their children to see the movie may be impelled to buy the three books as a Christmas present. And no parent who wants to bring their children up in the faith will want any part of these books"
I don't take issue with the book or the movie, but I do think that it's wrong for the studio to misrepresent these stories to the public.
And regarding the Passion of the Christ, having seen that film, I can tell you, honestly, that Jewish people were not horribly depicted in the film. Especially since Jesus, all the disciples, his family, and virtually everybody but the Romans were Jewish in the movie.
But, from the Hollywood left and the more liberal leaning Jewish groups, more than just a peep was raised regarding the film. This is confirmed by the fact you've been lead to believe that the film cast Jewish people in a "horrible light."
Of concern to the movie studios though.
Box office gross (domestic) of The Passion of the Christ: $370,782,930 2004
Box office gross (domestic) of The Last Temptation of Christ: $8,373,585 1988
Most people are offended, not by the fact a movie with anti-religious themes has been released. That's hardly an uncommon occurrence. It's the fact that the story is being marketed in a way to disguise this fact. And the attacks on religion haven't been removed, the director just says that they've been toned down.
"Unsuspecting parents who take their children to see the movie may be impelled to buy the three books as a Christmas present. And no parent who wants to bring their children up in the faith will want any part of these books"
I don't take issue with the book or the movie, but I do think that it's wrong for the studio to misrepresent these stories to the public.
And regarding the Passion of the Christ, having seen that film, I can tell you, honestly, that Jewish people were not horribly depicted in the film. Especially since Jesus, all the disciples, his family, and virtually everybody but the Romans were Jewish in the movie.
But, from the Hollywood left and the more liberal leaning Jewish groups, more than just a peep was raised regarding the film. This is confirmed by the fact you've been lead to believe that the film cast Jewish people in a "horrible light."
Of concern to the movie studios though.
Box office gross (domestic) of The Passion of the Christ: $370,782,930 2004
Box office gross (domestic) of The Last Temptation of Christ: $8,373,585 1988
i think the church does more damage to themselves by speaking out about these things. it actually ends up promoting books/movies etc. more because people want to see what the church thinks is so terrible about them as well as the controversy just adds to publicity. there is already enough information around to cast doubt without they themselves bringing attention to it. but then, i guess they must warn their own and keep their propaganda machine rolling, lest they lose more. it is a FANTASY story after all. i think i'll bundle up my daughter and take her in to see it.
95, maybe this is what you were looking for?http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm
or maybe something like it. click the link "objections" at the bottom as well.
and for a laugh http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution Hoax/4000.htm
or maybe something like it. click the link "objections" at the bottom as well.
and for a laugh http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution Hoax/4000.htm
If that were the case,then the movie companies wouldn't attempt to disguise the authors themes in the book and tone down the attacks on religion. The reality is quite to the contrary, look at the box offices of the two movies Passion and Last Temptation I listen above. Overwhelmingly, this is a spiritual nation, one that doesn't take well to attacks on faith. I've read in several sources that the film makers and the industry are really worried about this movie. It cost a lot to make and there is genuine concern that they aren't going to recover the production costs due to religious, or even mildly spiritual people, avoiding this movie during the CHRISTMAS season.