TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
I watched it in the theatres, Mel got my $9.50.
"Golden Compass" is an anti-religion film?
- Thread starter Calabrio
- Start date
I watched it in the theatres, Mel got my $9.50.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
I watched the passion in the theatres... the scene where Pontius asks the gathered Jews to pick between Barabbas, the murderer and thief or Jesus. Pontius was cast as being beyond reluctant to punish Jesus, yet the Jews gathered called for Pontius to release a murderer and punish Jesus instead.
Mel filmed that scene intentionally, to cast the Jews as nothing more than a rambling bloodthristy job.
I honestly didn't hear much protest over "The Passion", expecially when compared to the protest over movies like Da Vinci Code, Harry Pottery and The Golden Compass, now.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Deville, if you read the Biblical account, that is exactly what happened. But Jesus and his disciples were Jews also, so how is this a Jew bashing issue?
You have to read the full account to understand that it was the Sanhedrin that incited the mob to demand Jesus' crucifixion. The Sanhedrin trumped up false charges in a kangaroo court so they could get rid of him. They did this because they were afraid Jesus would establish a kingdom and their powerbase would be gone.
Pilate was a fair-minded judge whose wife had told him that she had suffered bad dreams because of Jesus, and she told him to stay away from Jesus. So Pilate, who said he could find no fault in Jesus, trying to give the Jews an obvious choice, offered to release either Jesus or Barabbas. Surely the crowd wouldn't release Barabbas. But, incited by the Sanhedrin, they did.
You have to read the full account to understand that it was the Sanhedrin that incited the mob to demand Jesus' crucifixion. The Sanhedrin trumped up false charges in a kangaroo court so they could get rid of him. They did this because they were afraid Jesus would establish a kingdom and their powerbase would be gone.
Pilate was a fair-minded judge whose wife had told him that she had suffered bad dreams because of Jesus, and she told him to stay away from Jesus. So Pilate, who said he could find no fault in Jesus, trying to give the Jews an obvious choice, offered to release either Jesus or Barabbas. Surely the crowd wouldn't release Barabbas. But, incited by the Sanhedrin, they did.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
I'll give you that, that Mel did follow scripture, but his choice in how he directed that scene, seemed a bit bias. You don't have to bash every Jew, Christian, Muslim etc., "to bash".
I understand that part, that Jesus and his ideas were a threat to the already established powers that be, Mel also did a good job in portraying the Jewish leaders as power-hungry.
Speaking of that account, I do find it extremely hard to believe that Pontius would release Barabbas, a man you had/is rebelling against Roman rule and a man who had killed Romans. Rome held control partly through fear and Roman law was extremely harsh on those who went against it. In letting a known killer of Roman soldiers and rebel go, Pontius would face retribution from his own men, let along from Rome itself. Pontius would basically be signing his own death warrant.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
This is easily explained in the gospels. Here is the account from Mark 15. Note verse 6 and 8, where clearly releasing a prisoner was custom during the passover feast:
Mark 15:1-32 KJV
1 And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate.
2 And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto them, Thou sayest it.
3 And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing.
4 And Pilate asked him again, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they witness against thee.
5 But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled.
6 Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired.
7 And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection.
8 And the multitude crying aloud began to desire him to do as he had ever done unto them.
9 But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
10 For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy.
11 But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them.
12 And Pilate answered and said again unto them, What will ye then that I shall do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews?
13 And they cried out again, Crucify him.
14 Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him.
15 And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.
16 And the soldiers led him away into the hall, called Praetorium; and they call together the whole band.
17 And they clothed him with purple, and platted a crown of thorns, and put it about his head,
18 And began to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews!
19 And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him.
20 And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him.
21 And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.
22 And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull.
23 And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not.
24 And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take.
25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
27 And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.
28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
29 And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days,
30 Save thyself, and come down from the cross.
31 Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save.
32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.
Notice the way he is treated by the Jews in that passage. Not, ehm, very friendly. "Cried out the more exceedingly" - what do you think that means, and how would you display it in a movie scene?
You can watch the first 5 minutes of the film here:
http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/thegoldencompass.html?showVideo=1
...and here is a review of the film:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/34953
I personally won't go see it because it looks too much like the Chronicles of Narnia movie, i.e. boring. Mostly a "how much CGI can we stuff into the film" movie. I don't like fantasy at all, but at least the Lord of the Rings movies had good drama and interesting characters.
http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/thegoldencompass.html?showVideo=1
...and here is a review of the film:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/34953
I personally won't go see it because it looks too much like the Chronicles of Narnia movie, i.e. boring. Mostly a "how much CGI can we stuff into the film" movie. I don't like fantasy at all, but at least the Lord of the Rings movies had good drama and interesting characters.
If under Roman law Pilate was authorized to released a prisoner according to the wishes of the people, then I don't see why his life would necessarily be in danger for releasing Barabbas since it would be a serious offense to murder a Roman governor, undoubtedly subject to punishment by death--likely by crucifixion.
Have fun. Your dead on with regards to the Harry Potter/Narnia thing. I didn't like any of the Potter films or Narnia, and thins movie doesn't interest me (except for the hype surrounding it).
Sorry, been kinda busy and frankly was a little burnt out on this topic. Anyhow, here we go...
Thank you!
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1685
I ran through the article and found that any claim that "intellegent design advocate are trying to redefine science to accept supernatural explanation" is in fact a distortion of what the article says, which is this [in part]:
What the article does is describe Ratzsch's argument as being that naturalistic assumptions (that the supernatural doesn't exist) of evolutionists and athiests are unfounded. He is simple saying that there is no justification for ruling out the supernatural out of hand (which is what evolution does). That is a far cry from "trying to redefine science to accept supernatural explanation."
Assuming the supernatural doesn't exist, as the quote points out, is that same as assuming God doesn't exist. One of Richard Dawkins most famous quotes was, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled athiest." This is why many who believe in evolution treat any doubts about evolution as religious heresy.
Look up: "methodological naturalism"
Thank you!
Post #93; hrmwrm had cited wikipedia as saying,"Advocates of intelligent design claim it is a scientific theory, and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations". Wikipedia cited the following book review as "proof" for that statement:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1685
I ran through the article and found that any claim that "intellegent design advocate are trying to redefine science to accept supernatural explanation" is in fact a distortion of what the article says, which is this [in part]:
An astonishing number of theists argue that science ought to be methodologically "naturalistic"... "You can't put God in a test tube," Ratzsch [author of the book being reviewed] quotes the philosophical naturalist Eugenie Scott as arguing, and therefore "science acts as if the supernatural did not exist. This methodological naturalism is the cornerstone of modern science." Scott is right, many theists affirm: God may be real but He is empirically inscrutable. It is thus best that we acted, as we reason about the workings of nature, as if God were away on other business....But that cannot be correct, argues Ratzsch. Methodological naturalism prejudges the shape of reality in a way that any "truth-seeking" science can ill afford:
If nature is not a closed, naturalistic system -- that is, if reality does not respect the naturalists' edict -- then the science built around that edict cannot be credited "a priori" [knowledge is independent of experience] with getting at truth, being self-corrective or anything of the sort. Now if we had some rational reason for accepting naturalism as in fact true, then stipulating that science had to be naturalistic...would make perfect sense. But that would involve making a case for naturalism -- not simply decreeing that science was by definition or for convenience naturalistic, which is the path taken by various evolutionists.
If nature is not a closed, naturalistic system -- that is, if reality does not respect the naturalists' edict -- then the science built around that edict cannot be credited "a priori" [knowledge is independent of experience] with getting at truth, being self-corrective or anything of the sort. Now if we had some rational reason for accepting naturalism as in fact true, then stipulating that science had to be naturalistic...would make perfect sense. But that would involve making a case for naturalism -- not simply decreeing that science was by definition or for convenience naturalistic, which is the path taken by various evolutionists.
What the article does is describe Ratzsch's argument as being that naturalistic assumptions (that the supernatural doesn't exist) of evolutionists and athiests are unfounded. He is simple saying that there is no justification for ruling out the supernatural out of hand (which is what evolution does). That is a far cry from "trying to redefine science to accept supernatural explanation."
Assuming the supernatural doesn't exist, as the quote points out, is that same as assuming God doesn't exist. One of Richard Dawkins most famous quotes was, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled athiest." This is why many who believe in evolution treat any doubts about evolution as religious heresy.
Look up: "methodological naturalism"
I really haven't a clue. But as I have stated before, if evolution is fact, it can still be intelligent design in the minds of thiests. There is no proof that God didn't set evolution in motion. However, since evolution inherently assumes that God doesn't exist, then any chance that God does exist is a threat to the theory. basically evolution doesn't challenge thiests because they view evolution as a possible method of creation. Athiest/ evolutionists view evolution as theory (if not their own religious dogma) and any proof of God would discredit that theory. ID and evolution aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
Screw Golden Compass! Here is the movie I wanna see!!!
(Directed by the guys who wrote and directed the Matrix movies) Check the link:
http://movies.aol.com/movie/speed-racer-2008/28066/main
(Directed by the guys who wrote and directed the Matrix movies) Check the link:
http://movies.aol.com/movie/speed-racer-2008/28066/main
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
I'm sorry; but that does not prove your claim that the theory of Evolution, assumes, relies on or tries to demonstrate that God doesn't exist. As I said, Evolution theory theorizes (or tries to, depending on your personal views) on how life forms changed, developed, evolved, spread etc., it doesn't factor in God, in either a positve or negative. Can you quote me something in Evolution theroy that says "there can't be a God", or something similar?
True, but on the flip-side, there is no proof that God didn't set evolution into motion, it's simple an unknown. God existing is no threat to the theory of Evolution, unless God were to come and personally say it just isn't so. Evolution theory on the other hand, is a threat in how God is viewed by certain religions.
Evolution as the origins of life does contradict religion IF you believe in the literal interpretation of the bible and you honestly do think that everything happened over the span of a week, or that all life sprung up in it's present form.
Otherwise, random evolution as the origins of life doesn't necessarily challenge the existence of a God. But it would mean that humans are no different than other animals, not in the image of a God, and frankly nothing special but really smart primates. While that doesn't mean no God exists, God as mankind has understood it wouldn't.
Important distinctions- Evolution is widely recognized as a commonly curring biological process. But the issue here is that all life was the result of completely random evolution. So evolutionary processes don't challenge religion. Random evolution as the cause of all life tends to challenge religion as we know it.
Otherwise, random evolution as the origins of life doesn't necessarily challenge the existence of a God. But it would mean that humans are no different than other animals, not in the image of a God, and frankly nothing special but really smart primates. While that doesn't mean no God exists, God as mankind has understood it wouldn't.
Important distinctions- Evolution is widely recognized as a commonly curring biological process. But the issue here is that all life was the result of completely random evolution. So evolutionary processes don't challenge religion. Random evolution as the cause of all life tends to challenge religion as we know it.
back to the topic. i watched this movie this morning. since the seed of anti-religious was planted, i can see the point. if i seen the movie without that thought, i don't see how you can get that from it. it is anti-empirical. but then most movies of this genre are. the kid is the hero, pevailing over forces stronger and larger. i think too much was made of the hype over this. after gaining knowledge of the author you can see where the idea came from. but it's still the same thing as any fantasy movie. a lot of good special animated effects in this one.
back to the rest. i think you are close to hitting it calabrio. evolution and other ideals of science create such a backlash because they take away the distinction and uniqueness of man. he is just another animal in the chain of life. nothing special. just happens to be able to have a higher level of thought.
once you bust the idea of genesis, not many are prepared to humble themselves to that idea. even if their is a god, man was not necessarily meant to be the outcome. it's quite possible to have never had a highly intelligent species. but being able to better survey and manipulate your environment does make for a better chance of survival. there are tremendous possibilities for any outcome. this just happens to be the one we ended up with.
once you bust the idea of genesis, not many are prepared to humble themselves to that idea. even if their is a god, man was not necessarily meant to be the outcome. it's quite possible to have never had a highly intelligent species. but being able to better survey and manipulate your environment does make for a better chance of survival. there are tremendous possibilities for any outcome. this just happens to be the one we ended up with.
Good point; evolution in the broad sense, vs. darwinian evolution
How does Eugenie Scott's quote not prove that? "science acts as if the supernatural did not exist. This methodological naturalism is the cornerstone of modern science" The whole methodological naturalism inherently assumes the supernatural doesn't exist.
I assume you realize Eugenie Scott is a physical anthropologist who has been the executive director of the National Center for Science Education since 1987 as well as being a leading critic of creationism and intelligent design. I don't know if you were thinking she was a Theist, but I could see where you get that impression. To set the record straight, she isn't. She is a huge critic of creationism and intelligent design as is Dawkins. She also knows the nature of science, philosophically, better then you and I, and she confirms that evolution, due to it's foundation in methodological naturalism inherently assumes away God.
While I grew up in the church (dad was a pastor) I don't exactly consider myself a practicing christian. I believe God exists, but am not to trusting of him. My belief in his existance is a minor issue to me. That said, Most of my family is very religious as well as family friends. I have yet to meet one christian who's view of God is at all threatened by evolution. In fact, my uncle, would be very adamantly on your side of the debate on this, though he could argue theology probably at least as well as I argue politics (not neccessarily saying much, I know). Evolution doesn't disprove (or even attempt to disprove) God, and as such, doesn't challenge faith.
Athiests, on the other hand seem to be threatened by the possible existance of God. Probably due to it being a threat to their "religious doctrine" of sorts.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
That's twice you said "just happens." What a logical, scientific way to put it; yet you describe the theory of evolution to a "T." You can't produce a shred of evidence that shows how man, a clearly higher form of intelligence with an ability FAR above that of animals, namely the ability to REASON, somehow developed FROM animals. There just simply isn't any way for the genetic code to have written itself. (You will undoubtedly use the kneejerk response, "Oh yeah? Well you can't prove there is a God either!")
You have been unable to "bust" the idea of Genesis. Even now you use the phrase "if there is a god," demonstrating that you really cannot definitively say that there is NOT a God. To do so accurately would require absolute knowledge, and as has already been discussed, you do not possess that. The very presence of evidence that INDICATES that there MIGHT be a God destroys the atheist's absolute statement that there is no God.
Taking your "if" statement a little further, IF there is a God, the nearest evidence you can find to His intentions and his instructions is the Bible. If you take yet another small leap (baby step, really) you can acknowledge that the Bible unequivocally states that man was created for God's pleasure, his glory, and his companionship with God. The fact that man is "on the outs" with God these days is man's fault, not God's.
Good point. I have yet to hear any objective evidence given. To "bust" Genesis, you would have to make assumptions about it, and what is the correct interpretation of it. Usually, athiests wanna take a literal interpretation and then laugh because, "we all know the earth wasn't created in seven day". Anyone who knows anything about the bible knows that time is rather obscure in the bible. A "day" in the bible has a number of different figures, none of which are neccessarily applicable to the Genesis analogy.
My high school natural science teacher/martial arts instructor pointed out something to me about evolution and creation once. If you take the seven days of creation in the bible and give each day a certian relative figure (I don't remember the figure; maybe something like 5, 10, 20, 100 million years, let's just say "x") then everything in evolution and creation line up as to when creatures, land masses, ect. came into being. According to this idea, effectively creation is an analogy for the general course of evolution. Again, he explained this to me in High school, which was quite a while ago. Don't hold me to the figure's I suggested for the seven days of creation, the number could be (and probably is) something completely different from what I suggested.
the years given may line up for earth and eveything about it. but it hardly accounts for the time frame of the universe. considering it's in excess of 3 times earths chronology. sorry, don't buy that arguement.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
I reject that "gap" theory, and it really comes down to a translation of Hebrew, believe it or not.
Here's an excerpt:
Author’s Intention
The following considerations show us what God intended us to understand:
1. The meaning of any part of the Bible must be decided in terms of the intention of the author. In the case of Genesis, the intention of its author clearly was to write a historical account. This is shown by the way in which the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul regarded Genesis—that is, they quoted it as being truth, not symbolic myth or parable.5,6 It was plainly not the author's intention to convey allegorical poetry, fantasy, or myth. And so what God, through Moses, said about creation in Genesis should not be interpreted in these terms.
Moses did, in fact, use some of the above 'long–time' words (italicized in the examples below, with root Hebrew words in square brackets), although not with reference to the days of creation. For example, in Genesis 1:14, he wrote, 'Let there be lights ... for seasons [moed]'; in Genesis 6:3, 'My spirit shall not always [olam] strive with man'; in Genesis 9:12 'for perpetual generations [olam dor]'; in Leviticus 24:2, 'to burn continually [tamid]'; in Numbers 24:20 'that he perish for ever [ad]'; in Deuteronomy 30:20, 'He is thy light and the length of thy days [yôm orek]'; in Deuteronomy 32:7, 'Remember the days of old [yôm olam]'; and so on.
Why did God not use any of these words with reference to the creation days, seeing that He used them to describe other things? Clearly it was His intention that the creation days should be regarded as being normal earth-rotation days, and it was not His intention that any longer time–frames should be inferred.
Professor James Barr, professor of Hebrew at Oxford University agrees that the words used in Genesis 1 refer to 'a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience', and he says that he knows of no professor of Hebrew at any leading university who would say otherwise.7
2. Children have no problem in understanding the meaning of Genesis. The only reason why other ideas are entertained is because people apply concepts from outside the Bible, principally from evolutionary/atheistic sources, to interpret the Bible.
I am only talking about evolution and Genesis. Evolution says nothing about how the universe was formed. Your "discrediting" it for illogical reasons. The big bang theory and evolution are two completely different theories. one is totally planet based, and one explains how that planet came into being.
Never heard it called that! There yo go, hrmwrm, I guess that is the teory I was talkin about. You can get a basic idea about what that theory is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism
******
Correction, the Gap theory, as spelled out in that link still claims that the earth as we know it was created in a 24 hour seven day period. That wasn't what I was saying. Sorry, just skimed the link originally.
******
Here is a link to the original scripture:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 1:1—2:3;&version=9;
Notice that the whole "let there be light" thing occured before things start getting divided into days. This suggests that the 7 day thing exclusively deals with the creation of life on earth.
Interesting theory. I will point out that the "author" (meaning the man, or men who wrote down Genesis) could in no way have witnessed creation because man wasn't created until the last day. So the intent of the author isn't neccessarily the best inturpretation to take, beacause what they wrote down was (presumably) a story handed down through the generations. Just playing devil's advocate here (pun intended).
I don't think there is any way to prove or disprove any interpretation here because of a lack of first hand account. The story runs through many filters before it makes it on the page, and the filter of translation before in ended up in english text.
I am not overly interested in debating scriptural interpretation because the matter of being faith based sets the the burden of proof so high it is impossible to know what the right specific interpretation is. To prove ay interpretation logically with this burden of proof, you have to disprove any other possible interpretation, in addition to providing proof that your interpretation is right. A task that, without first hand knowledge of the account or story being written about is impossible.
This critique ironically, shows the beauty of the bible; under any rational interpretation all the basic tenants and values still hold up. Creation is a prime example. The basics of "God created the universe and all the plants and stars" and "everything was created in a certian order", still stand up under both the your interpretation and the one I offered. It's the specifics that are being debated, and they are not as relevant as those two basic facts.
Science is different. Not being a matter of faith, the burden of proof is a lot lower. It is provable or disprovable simply through the facts available and the reasoning behind the theory. This is how accepted science changes. One theory may stand up to the facts we had at the time the theory was created. as time goes by, more facts start to cast doubt on aspects of the theory, so the theory is adjusted. After a point, the theory becomes so out of phase with what we know, that the theory is cast aside from a new, more accurate theory; a paradigm shift. This is a slow process, usually taking a generation or two; we are seeing the beginnings of this with ID starting to replacing evolution as the accepted explanation of creation.
you stated it shagdrum. man wasn't there to witness things. so it was a story handed down and told to them by who or what? then you have something that is perfect essentially lying. as stated in the other post, there is a whole genesis of life on earth not accounted for in the bible that takes up a time frame far surpassing the cattle on the land and man. so god just omitted this part? so all of evolution on the land leading up to the dinosaurs and then their time of rule on earth were just an abberation on god's part is what you would like me to believe.
and if you read genesis carefully, the stars are created after the earth. this would lead me to interpret that the universe was created after earth, not the other way. believe if you wish. just don't try and tell me that your story is right. it's far from it.
and if you read genesis carefully, the stars are created after the earth. this would lead me to interpret that the universe was created after earth, not the other way. believe if you wish. just don't try and tell me that your story is right. it's far from it.
I never said you have to believe what I said ( i actually presented a few ideas, not gap theory though, as I corrected). The thing is, with Genesis being in the bible and thus "faith based" that sets the burden extremely high, to the having to disprove every possible alternative interpretation, in addition to proving your your interpretation. The fact that most interpretations are coming from the point of view that Genesis (as well as the bible as the bible as a whole) teaches thru analogy makes this even more impossible. Essentially, without first hand knowledge you can't meet that burden of proof (maybe even with it, considering analogous interpretations). So as it stands, you haven't, and can't dissprove and discredit Genesis.
Darwinian evolution is different, because it is a science. The theory stands (and falls) on its own. It can be disprove through known facts and logic and reason.
BTW, did you go see the Golden Compass yet?
How was it?