DescentBB

After watching the trailer (it's on the website), i'd say this movie is not anti-religious. But it is anti-everything-that-goes-wrong-with-religious-establishments.

Correct Ferno?


I mean, Ferno can you name something in the movie that is anti-religious? I bet it's just all anti-facist anti-ignorance anti-slavery, these sorts of things that are commonly associated with the bad aspects of religion. These are typical themes in modern kids movies.

roid wrote:...i'd say this movie is not anti-religious. But it is anti-everything-that-goes-wrong-with-religious-establishments.

That's the point Tiger made earlier, and I'm willing to admit it's probably the best argument against my stance, if it's true.

However, from the information I've seen, the books are broad-brush anti-Christian, not just anti-dogmatism. Heck, the bad guys are called "the Church"!

Maybe in the movie it's been watered down to anti-religious-dogmatism rather than anti-Christian... but should that really make a difference to someone in my position, when I'm well aware of the original theme?

Guys, leave him be. If he doesn't want to see it, its his choice. You've presented your cases and he's made up his mind.

Wait, what? The books never implied that any certain religion was involved! They were just anti-religious-dogmatism.
This is what happens when you take your opinions purely from other's articles.

Foil wrote:Ummm, it's on the second page of this thread, T.

That period was added by you, instead of finishing the sentence. It seems like a small difference, but it sets out that I wasn't saying the author made it entirely anti-religious to make it seem like religions were utmost evil.

MD-2389 wrote:Guys, leave him be. If he doesn't want to see it, its his choice. You've presented your cases and he's made up his mind.

If it was him alone, I'd have left it by now. But when he also makes up other peoples' minds, I have to interrupt.

Foil wrote:And once my children are mature and rational enough to make their own informed decisions, I would let them.

Just an aside, but maybe you shouldn't give them any religious priming until then too.

Foil wrote:I just won't support something that attacks my beliefs. It's that simple.

Foil wrote:Heck, the bad guys are called "the Church"!

I wonder why.... In the latest encyclical from Pope Benedict, he acused atheists as being totally responsible for the greatest form of cruelty, suffering, and injustice in the world because those injustices could never be the work of a good God.

In a way, I consider the contents of that document to be false and a direct attack on what I believe but I'm not about to throw out my Chronicles of Narnia Boxed Set that I really liked or stop singing Christian music simply because of an author who needs to reexamine history.

You really have a closed mind me thinks.

TIGERassault wrote:

Foil wrote:Ummm, it's on the second page of this thread, T.

That period was added by you, instead of finishing the sentence. It seems like a small difference, but it sets out that I wasn't saying the author made it entirely anti-religious to make it seem like religions were utmost evil.

I didn't intend to misquote you. My reading of your post was (paraphrased), "It's anti-religious. But it focuses on religious dogmatism." Apparently I misread, I apologize.

TIGERassault wrote:If it was him alone, I'd have left it by now. But when he also makes up other peoples' minds, I have to interrupt.

I'm not trying to make others' minds at all. I even said (twice!) that my view clearly wouldn't make a difference to someone who doesn't share my beliefs.

Bet51987 wrote:(Referring to an document by Pope Benedict which accuses atheists of being responsible for evil in the world) In a way, I consider the contents of that document to be false and a direct attack on what I believe but I'm not about to throw out my Chronicles of Narnia Boxed Set that I really liked or stop singing Christian music simply because of an author who needs to reexamine history.

I think you made my point!

Because of what it directly says about atheists, you would never support that document or it's author (I don't blame you, it's a ridiculous statement). However, that doesn't prevent you from enjoying things created by other Christians (like music and films).

Exactly the same for me, from a different point of view:

Because of what it directly says about religion (not just dogmatism), I would never support The Golden Compass or it's author. However, that doesn't prevent me from enjoying things created by other atheists (like music and films).

Foil wrote:I think you made my point!

I don't think so. After my priest mentioned that quote, I went online and read the entire document and what led up to it even though I disagreed with the author and knew what it was about.

Your not doing that.

Bee

So knowing what the author said he meant when he wrote the book doesn't count unless I read the book itself? Why should I trust my own judgement of the theme over what the author said?

roid wrote:After watching the trailer (it's on the website), i'd say this movie is not anti-religious. But it is anti-everything-that-goes-wrong-with-religious-establishments.

Correct Ferno?

yup

I mean, Ferno can you name something in the movie that is anti-religious? I bet it's just all anti-facist anti-ignorance anti-slavery, these sorts of things that are commonly associated with the bad aspects of religion. These are typical themes in modern kids movies.

pretty much.


Foil.. the bad guys aren't called the church. they're not really called anything, but they're members of 'the magesterium'. A political type institution, which was trying for a 'final solution'.

TIGERassault wrote:

MD-2389 wrote:Guys, leave him be. If he doesn't want to see it, its his choice. You've presented your cases and he's made up his mind.

If it was him alone, I'd have left it by now. But when he also makes up other peoples' minds, I have to interrupt.

*nod*
someone else started the thread, and multiple ppl have been infected.

This thread is an example of meme propagation
One of the worst kinds of memes too - religious fear.
Ironicly Snopes is being referenced in the meme itself!

Does anyone remember that thread i started about Satanic cults and how they NEVER EVEN EXISTED? Few ppl here even believed me, lol. Wonder why that is (no actually i don't)

Foil wrote:Quit skimming, take the time to go back and read the posts, because the above isn't what was said at all.

By the way, as I've said at least twice already, there's a big difference between films like Harry Potter and The Golden Compass. One is non-Christian, the other is very clearly anti-Christian.

I know what the movie is about. The books are clearly anti-Christian, but the movie has been scrubbed of any overt Christian references. A big bad Soviet-style oppressing control has been substituted instead. However, I think the association is hinted at in a not-so-subtle way and that's what's angering many people.

What's wrong with an anti-Christian theme anyway? Christians have a checkered past (and present) when it comes to power and manipulating people. It's not Jesus that's being attacked but the churches and organizations that supposedly PREACH HIS teachings. Men have used the power of the church to commit horrible things, the Inquisition, the Catholic church's silence during the Holocaust to name a few, in order to get control over large numbers of people.

I have the belief that many Christian church organizations are a front for power greedy men who have forgotten the original message of Jesus. It's the churches, not the Prophet, that's been twisted and subverted into a controlling, power hungry monster and I think that's the message here.

Remember the movie 'Stigmata'? That movie was a direct attack on the Catholic Church for their labeling as heresy the little known 'Gospel of Thomas'.

Foil wrote:So knowing what the author said he meant when he wrote the book doesn't count unless I read the book itself? Why should I trust my own judgement of the theme over what the author said?

I'm not saying you shouldn't. I'm saying you shouldn't be taking what he said personally. The Pope didn't point his finger at me when he blamed atheists for everything evil, no more than the movie writer pointed his finger at you when he condemned religion. I'm a little ticked about what the Pope said but not enough for me to boycott him and kick over statues. I guess I'm just not as polarized as you seem to be.

Bee

Am I 'kicking over statues'?

tunnelcat wrote:I know what the movie is about. The books are clearly anti-Christian, but the movie has been scrubbed of any overt Christian references. A big bad Soviet-style oppressing control has been substituted instead.

That's not really much of a difference-maker to me, when I'm well aware of the non-softened original work it's derived from.

tunnelcat wrote:What's wrong with an anti-Christian theme anyway? Christians have a checkered past (and present)...

True, and a film about the topic of things done in the name of religion or Christ could very well be worth watching. But when the original work (the book) attacks Christianity on the basis of its foundational beliefs, to me that's a very different thing.

----------------

P.S. roid, you continue to refer to "fear" as the source of my perspective. Where, in this whole thread, have I ever said fear had anything to do with my view? You won't find it, and in fact you'll find that I pointed out at least twice that this has nothing to do with paranoia or fear; it has everything to do with the choice of whether to support something that takes a stance directly against one's beliefs.

For example, I know you wouldn't support the anti-atheist document by Pope Benedict that Bettina mentioned, but I wouldn't accuse you of doing so out of a sense of fear.

you fear your children watching it.

but i think i see what you are saying. it's a boycott thing.
i don't know you but, i just have trouble believing fear is not involved when Christians send these sorts of FW:FW:FW:FW: emails \"warning\" their fellow Christians about this movie.

i mean, after actually watching it how many of them will even think it was anti-religious? i think that's more important. REALITY. i think this boycott is based on ignorance, and i know people well enough that when you smell institutionalised ignorance - FEAR will be somewhere at it's source.

Paganism is a religion. From watching the trailer i think the movie is symbolic of Paganism vs The Greater Christian Church. The movie seems to say that it's wrong for Pagans to be forced to give up their beliefs (forcably seperating you from your spirit animal) - so that doesn't seem anti-religious to me (remember Paganism is a religion). It seems anti-Colonialism.

And i SERIOUSLY doubt that has been changed from the book to the movie.

i don't think you'd really want to align yourself with what this movie is ACTUALLY against. I don't think you want to say \"hey, i'm all for forced religious conversion, and this movie is against that - so i hate this movie\".

I have often heard Christians on this forum say they prefer to think of themselves as un-affiliated with any Church - prefering to say that they are a Christian, an INDIVIDUAL, they follow Christ in their own way. I thought you were one of those individuals.

Are you sure this movie, or even the book, is ACTUALLY anti-you? I don't think it actually is - as i don't think you're a \"pro-colonial-forcable-religious-conversion\" type.
How well do you actually know the author?

roid wrote:i just have trouble believing fear is not involved when Christians send these sorts of FW:FW:FW:FW: emails "warning" their fellow Christians about this movie.

Fear probably is involved in the people sending those e-mails. What makes you so sure Foil is one of them?

I've seen a lot of people in this thread (subtly or directly) accuse Foil of being extreme, polarized, in fear, closed-minded, gullible, unconfident in his own faith, etc. I suspect those are apt descriptions of some people out there, but they don't strike me as appropriate descriptions for Foil based on what he's said in this thread and elsewhere. I think he's earned more respect and more benefit-of-the-doubt than he's been shown.

-----

As for my own stance: the trailers I saw long ago looked kinda nice. I thought I might enjoy the movie with the ice bears and such, but probably wouldn't see it in theaters (I've seen less than 2 dozen movies in the theater in my life, and most of those have been when someone else wanted to go. Serenity, the LotR trilogy, and a couple of Trek movies are the only ones I recall going out of my way to see. This does not appear to be in that class.) Howard Tayler's review cemented my "not good enough that I have to go see it right now" position.

From what I understand, the books are sufficiently anti-religious/anti-Christian that I wouldn't have watched a movie that was true to them. I don't mind directly engaging anti-religious content that I can debate (you see me do it here all the time), but I don't enjoy it for its own sake. The watered-down nature of the movie means it might eventually go on my "watch it if it shows up on the free movies on cable" list, which is where the vast majority of movies end up for me, because I'm cheap.

I don't see why the movie is treated as a total attack. I also don't see why people go so out of their way to try to prove opinions that cannot be proved, and get so heated about it. I'm not religious, though I dont think I'd really consider myself an athiest.
The way I see it, I'll live life according to the law and do what I do, and when I die and there's a god or some form of life after death, awesome. If not, I wont be there to notice it, so whatever.

If you see the movie as something that might affect your kids in a way that you yourself see negative, then dont let them see it. I find it silly to go way out of your way to attack a movie, the furthest I'd do is mabye mention it to someone but that's about it.

Lothar wrote: I've seen a lot of people in this thread (subtly or directly) accuse Foil of being extreme, polarized, closed-minded, .....

I'd like to take a sec to say that these are not exactly bad things. People with ideal are this. We NEED idealistic people in this world. Personally, I've begun to see open mindedness as a weakness. People change their minds on things so frequently, they've long forgotten what they originally believed in to what they will believe in next week. This forms a nice quagmire foundation for a society. THIS is dangerous. It also generates a breeding ground for fear as everyone becomes afraid that they may not be voicing the current opinion and how that might reflect on them. I see this in the news every single day.

rant over.

stick by your guns Foil.

Duper, wow.

we change our ideals so much in this society because our society is itself changing and adapting so quickly to technology. Culture is moving faster and faster, something on the internet is old within less than a week.

If things were static, and nothing changed, then yeah being closeminded will save mental energy. But things are changing man. If you can't keep up, don't get in the way .

I wholely agree with posting politically incorrect things though - to hell with trying to look smart and sophisticted. Just be honest - and get ready for what's comming.
We should always be eager to be newly educated.

case in point - i have really no idea what i'm talking about in my Public Space thread. I'm thinking out loud - i've barely stopped to ponder at all, running more on instinct - including prejudices. Waiting for someone who DOES know about these things to offer me some insight.
I often post while drunk, or outof my mind with low blood sugars - really who cares, no-one cares. Or if anyone does care, i'm sorry but I DON'T CARE LOL, i think some ppl are yelling at me in my thread, i forget.
Just always be ready to be educated.

roid wrote:you fear your children watching it.

Show me where I said that? You can't, because I didn't.

What I said was that I wouldn't want my hypothetical young children to see it (I made it very clear this wouldn't apply to more mature kids), because I value the faith they grow up in. In other words, I would want them to see a consistency in the faith I support.

roid wrote:i just have trouble believing fear is not involved when Christians send these sorts of FW:FW:FW:FW: emails "warning" their fellow Christians about this movie.

Regarding those email forwards, yes, you're right. They're typically fear-oriented and over-zealous. I get lots of them from well-meaning family and friends... and they just get deleted.

Where did you get the idea that's where I'm basing my information? You certainly didn't get it from anything I've posted.

If you had read my posts, you would have seen that I said (twice!) that I was initally very skeptical of the 'warnings'. This was precisely because the first reference I saw was one of those forwarded emails.

Spaceboy wrote:I don't see why the movie is treated as a total attack.

Because the books it's derived from are an anti-religious/anti-Christian attack.

This is not because I think so, or someone else thinks so... it's because Philip Pullman himself has made this very, very clear. Here are just a couple of quotes:
"Killing God." (Response to the question about the series' overall theme)
"I'm trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief."

Duper wrote:(referring to polarization and closed-mindedness) I'd like to take a sec to say that these are not exactly bad things. People with ideal are this. We NEED idealistic people in this world. Personally, I've begun to see open mindedness as a weakness.

Sorry, Duper, I can't agree with you there. Closed-minded Christians aren't stronger than those who have an open mind... they're weaker. It requires a stronger position, a more well-founded faith, to be able to dialogue about things on an objective level, rather than just denying that anyone else has any valid points.

Foil wrote:I'm not trying to make others' minds at all. I even said (twice!) that my view clearly wouldn't make a difference to someone who doesn't share my beliefs.

Hmm, really? I coulda sworn you kept saying that you'd prevent your own children from seeing this movie. Man, I must be hallucinating again...

TIGERassault wrote:

Foil wrote:I'm not trying to make others' minds at all. I even said (twice!) that my view clearly wouldn't make a difference to someone who doesn't share my beliefs.

Hmm, really? I coulda sworn you kept saying that you'd prevent your own children from seeing this movie. Man, I must be hallucinating again...

Nice try, T. But I'm not contradicting myself.

What I said was:
If someone doesn't share my beliefs, then it won't make a difference to them.

You basically said that I'm not being consistent with that statement in the case of my own children, which logically implies that my children fall into the "people who don't share my beliefs" category... I'm curious, where did you come up with that assumption?

Foil wrote:Nice try, T. But I'm not contradicting myself.

You contradicted yourself in the "I'm not trying to make others' minds at all" part. Which is the important part.

Nope, sorry, try again.

Now you're assuming that I am trying to force my (hypothetical, very young) children into thinking exactly what I do, which is not at all what I said, either. In fact, if you read my earlier posts, you will see that I agree with others who pointed out the dangers of indoctrinating children.

Where are these assumptions about my motivations coming from? I can only assume they're on based on stereotypes.

Let me make this clear, one more time:

I did not say I would fear my children being converted or influenced by the film.

I did not say that I would try to prevent them from hearing other viewpoints.

I did say that as a matter of raising them in a Christian household, I would not want them to be a part of any support for something so antagonistic and totally opposed to our family beliefs (no matter how \"cool\" it might be).


(*Sigh* Eventually I'm going to just start quoting my earlier statements; I'm getting tired of repeating myself.)

Foil wrote:I did say that as a matter of raising them in a Christian household, I would not want them to be a part of any support for something so antagonistic and totally opposed to our family beliefs (no matter how "cool" it might be).

Yes, that's the part I'm talking about when I say 'you made their minds up'.

What I'm really on about is not that you'd think this would make them atheist, but that they're not allowed to do a certain thing because you yourself are boycotting said thing.
That, and your reason for boycotting is still horribly pathetic. Disrespecting your faith in that small a way is hardly a reasonable excuse to prevent people from reading the books, which are often considered to be part of the top 5 book series, or seeing the movies based on the books.

I think that there is a potentially interesting topic to be discussed here. To what extent can we (or should we) influence young children's beliefs? The problem here seems to be that we can tell children a lot of things (they are quite impressionable in this regard), but they aren't always sophisticated enough to understand the reasons why the things that we tell them might be true, even if the reasons exist and we tell them.

I don't think that anyone has any problem telling children known facts, like that the earth is round. (What complicates this are groups like the Flat Earth Society that dispute known facts...) But there seems to be some topics that we always reserve to the individual to choose for his or her self. I think that religion is one of these. (Some others might be politics, ethics, \"favorite color,\" and so on.)

Of course, if we thought that we had the right religious viewpoint, we would want to pass that on to our children. So we might want to bias them into accepting this viewpoint when they are younger and impressionable. But this doesn't seem right to me. If topics of religion are really things that rational people should decide for their own, then maybe we should just wait until children are rational people to begin influencing them about religion. The cowardly way of doing this might be to expose children to no religion, but I think that the best way would be to expose them to a survey of ideas that would prepare them to make a decision themselves when they are ready. I think that this is even compatible with raising a child in a religion. \"This is what I believe, but some people believe X for the following reasons...\" (And then don't shortchange the opposition but give their strongest case...)

Although if your motivation for biasing your children toward your religion is simply, \"God commanded me to,\" then I suppose that there isn't much room for discussion.

Apparently this still isn't clear.

It's not that I want to bias my children's viewpoint, or \"protect\" them from anything non-Christian. As I've said before, I want them to learn to critique and establish their own genuine views, not a copy of mine.

My motivation is in the example I am to my kids. I want to demonstrate to them the importance of being consistent in one's views, as well as showing them that I consider my Christian perspective to be of utmost importance.

E.g., if my wife and I, as Christian parents, were inconsistent enough to allow them to support an anti-Christian work, what would that show our kids about the importance of our faith?

TigerASSAULT wrote:...your reason for boycotting is still horribly pathetic. Disrespecting your faith in that small a way is hardly a reasonable excuse...

"...that small a way..."?! You gotta be kidding me, Tiger.

This isn't some minor offense being blown out of proportion; Philip Pullman's statements are antagonistic, openly in opposition to anything Christian, and very clearly intended as an attack. Sure, the film was softened a bit and looks cool... but should that make a difference when I'm taking an ethical stance?

Foil wrote:True, and a film about the topic of things done in the name of religion or Christ could very well be worth watching. But when the original work (the book) attacks Christianity on the basis of its foundational beliefs, to me that's a very different thing.

Calm down Foil. Your beliefs and faith are yours and yours to hold dear. No one wants to take away or destroy what you believe, they couldn't. If you are firmly comfortable and steadfast with your faith, you shouldn't be upset when someone comes along and derides it. It's just someone's opinion after all, not fact, not a sword. What YOU believe is important and that you have the fortitude to keep it strong, that's what you have to remember.

If you don't want your (hypothetical) children to see this movie, that's your decision. Besides, could young children even GET the corollary in this movie? It would probably go right over their heads. You can't shelter kids forever and you can't convert all of them to your beliefs.

What I find funny about this whole thing is that if the Christian community hadn't raised a big stink about the anti-Christian theme in the movie, most people wouldn't have paid attention or cared about the sub-text. They would have just sat down and watched a fantasy movie and been entertained, and it would have probably gone on to obscurity.

Foil, I understand your motivations for not wanting to give money to a cause that you do not believe in. Would you let your children see it if it were at a free showing or on TV?

Foil wrote:

Spaceboy wrote:I don't see why the movie is treated as a total attack.

Because the books it's derived from are an anti-religious/anti-Christian attack.

This is not because I think so, or someone else thinks so... it's because Philip Pullman himself has made this very, very clear. Here are just a couple of quotes:
"Killing God." (Response to the question about the series' overall theme)
"I'm trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief."

i believe Philip Pullman's understanding of "the basis of Christian Belief" is different to yours. I feel you could quite happily enjoy this movie and book, seperating your personal beliefs from those of the Fictional Bad Church portrayed within.

Take this with a grain of salt though. I believe Christian Belief is based on a lot of denial, because i don't think a fully rational human being can truly be a Christian in this day and age - without dismissing a lot of reality around him as "inconvinent to my beliefs". From this standpoint - it's no wonder so many Christians believe that the theory of EVOLUTION is "anti-Christian". But a lot of Christians seem to live side by side with Evolution, in a form of Denial and dualism.
It sounds so strange (including to me), but i think any Christian could watch this movie and read the books, while remaining at ease with it, by using their innate abilitys of Denial - JUST LIKE THEY DO EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Coz if you think about it enough, this movie will be anti-Christian. But if you think about it enough, the whole of Reality and Existance around you is Anti-Christian. So if you can deal with reality through denial, you can deal with the movie the same way. Just like Christians tell themselves that they have nothing to do with forced-conversions, attacking heretics, facism in general, or anything else deeply rooted in the religion. DENIAL

harsh but true.

E.g., if my wife and I, as Christian parents, were inconsistent enough to allow them to support an anti-Christian work, what would that show our kids about the importance of our faith?

it would show that you will do anything to keep up appearances that your faith is unshakable, even putting your fingers in your ears. If your faith was really so solid you would fear* nothing.
*Don't give me this "i just refuse to support it" nonsense. You would avoid this movie even if it were free. And it has enough cultural merit - and relevance to your life and beliefs - to warrant seeing just for that.

Keeping up appearances... sigh. Kids notice taboos, if they express a viewpoint you don't like they will pick up that it makes you uneasy. To keep daddy happy they might even psychologically integrate the taboo themselves - especially if they are never exposed to an alternative view. And the show goes on for another generation!

I still think the movie was awesome.

Wow, just wow. So many comments trying to either prove or dis-prove if Foil would force his children to not view The Golden Compass.

I had to go clear back to Foil's first post in this thread to find this:

Foil wrote:No, I wouldn't want my (theoretical, because we don't have any yet) young kids to see it.

Is this because I am just prudish and have no appreciation for entertainment? No, and if you believe that you don't know me at all.

It's because I care about the early religious influences on my children, because I want them to grow up in my faith. I would expect the same of anyone else (e.g. I would expect any strong atheist to disapprove of his/her young kids going to a concert which is part of a Billy Graham crusade).

...Now, I have to make the disclaimer that once they're older, I would certainly let them see it. Heck, I might even encourage it, if they were studying perspectives about religion.

Did you catch what he said? He said he "wouldn't want" his children to view it. Did NOT say he wouldn't permit it. Just said he wouldn't want them to. Significant difference.

Near the end of that post you'll note he shows the indications of a loving parent (even though he doesn't yet have children) by demonstrating that he would try to make sure they didn't view it until they were sufficiently developed enough make their own conclusions wisely (he said: "once they're older").

And for those comments you guys are accusing him of wanting to force his children??? Oh good grief! You guys must be hunting for targets.

The entire lack of understanding between all of us is giving me a headache, so I'm only gonna say one thing here:

Foil wrote:openly in opposition to anything Christian,

THAT'S WRONG!

tunnelcat wrote:If you are firmly comfortable and steadfast with your faith, you shouldn't be upset when someone comes along and derides it. It's just someone's opinion after all, not fact, not a sword. What YOU believe is important and that you have the fortitude to keep it strong, that's what you have to remember.

roid wrote:If your faith was really so solid you would fear* nothing.

As I've said before:
- It's not a threat to my personal faith.
- It's not something I fear as an influence.
- I'm not worried about it, or afraid it's too popular, or concerned that it's not "Christian".

My family (myself, my wife, and my hypothetical future kids) are simply taking the stance that we don't support something which is antagonistic to our beliefs.

roid wrote:Don't give me this "i just refuse to support it" nonsense. You would avoid this movie even if it were free.

Jeff250 wrote:Foil, I understand your motivations for not wanting to give money to a cause that you do not believe in. Would you let your children see it if it were at a free showing or on TV?

Ah, thank you for pointing that out. I should have clarified that by "support", I don't mean the monetary sense.

By "support" I mean in the sense that sitting down to read or watch something implies it has potential overall value.

roid wrote:...i think any Christian could watch this movie and read the books, while remaining at ease with it, by using their innate abilitys of Denial...

Ah, so Christians should just deny an ethical stance, on the basis of entertainment value...?

roid wrote:...you will do anything to keep up appearances that your faith is unshakable, even putting your fingers in your ears.

Internet anonymity = you can think what you want about my intentions, I can't prove them to you. As far as you know, I might be a devout atheist trying to evoke good arguments from other athiests, or an agnostic playing a long-term practical joke... or maybe I'm just being honest about what I think. You can believe any of the above, I suppose.

Oh, and if "putting my fingers in my ears" is a metaphor for "doing my homework on the issue, taking an ethical stance based on my research, and openly discussing it", I guess you'd be right.

TIGERassault wrote:...I'm only gonna say one thing here:

Foil wrote:openly in opposition to anything Christian,

THAT'S WRONG!

The quotes I've posted from the author himself clearly demonstrate it. Do you have something to negate his statements, or something?

Foil wrote:My family (myself, my wife, and my hypothetical future kids) are simply taking the stance that we don't support something which is antagonistic to our beliefs.

Just curious. Does this include profanity in the form of fwords? Or are those ok.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:Just curious. Does this include profanity in the form of fwords? Or are those ok.

Bee

Hm, interesting question.

Profanity like the "f-word" is certainly antagonistic in many cases. It's definitely something my wife and I don't use (although I admit I have, in times when I've let my temper get the better of me). When we have kids, we believe it's important to establish an example for them about appropriate language; not a bunch of "you can't say X" rules, but to teach them the importantance of how you converse with people, even those you disagree with.

Back to the topic, although I would certainly be cautious about my young kids watching films with profanity, I don't see the "f-word" by itself as an attack on my belief system. (I'm making a guess that you're hinting at a contrast or similarity in my rationale, but feel free to correct me). It is true that certain phrases laced with "God (something)" could possibly be meant as a religious attack, but that's not normally the case, at least in popular American culture.

Let me see if I can put it this way:

*The major factor for me when evaluating things like music, books, and films is the intent, rather than the words or genre or format being used.*

There have been films I've seen with various levels of profanity, but the value (or non-value) of the film has much more to do with the intent, the reason the language is there. So although they both use some of the same language, a film like Crash (where the language is there as part of some realistic scenes about racial tensions) has much more value to me than a film like Pulp Fiction. The same applies for violence, The Passion of the Christ vs. Bloodsport, etc. In other words, I will certainly be cautious about what my very young kids see, but the most overriding factor is the intent.

That's the reason I see The Golden Compass as very different from Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. The latter two were made to be enjoyable films, the former was written with the intent to attack my faith.

you can argue intent til you're blue in the face but until you see the movie you're more or less just blowing smoke up people's butts.