Free Dating Site    

I'm afraid I can noy recomend this film for children, not because of religious overtones (of which there were none as they had all been removed from this first film) but because the film is not exciting enough to keep children entertained throughout (although polar bears in armour fighting is very cool to watch).

And as for those complaining about the anti-christian mesag of the film, I do not see that at all. It is more anti-establishment than anti-christian. The main bad guys have secrete workshops and run the world, looking in all like the government rather than a religion. Other characters show religions of many difrent faiths, and cast no promises of good or evil on them.

the Catholic Church is fair game as far as Hollywood villians in concerned

As far as I am concerned the Catholic Church is fair game as far as Hollywood villians in concerned. So long they were a voice of oppression and genocide.

CHILDREN CANNOT THINK FOR THEMSELVES! They become what we make them by careful molding of their delicate personalities.

This movie is based on the first book of a children's trilogy called His Dark Materials by Phillip Pullman. In the final book, the children deem God (not just God, they call Him by name, Yahweh) evil, and devise a plan to destroy Him. For any who don't know about the name Yahweh, this is the name of the God of Abraham, the God of the Christians. (originally YHWH in the Hebrew texts)

The movie is set for release on December 7, 2007

I think Pullman seems to have some issues with religion, particularly the Catholic Church. Conservative Catholics and Christians may well find the movies and books irritating, but no-one is forcing them to see the movies or read the books. In so far as arguments against God's existence go, there are far more powerful ones from much brighter minds than Pullman's (Dawkins or Nietzsche come to mind) and these are my main concern rather than the writings in a fantasy novel which can be read in one afternoon.

Give me back the time and money I spent on this Harry Potter rip-off...

In so far as arguments against God's existence go, there are far more powerful ones from much brighter minds than Pullman's (Dawkins or Nietzsche come to mind) and these are my main concern rather than the writings in a fantasy novel which can be read in one afternoon.

scorpiomover: Sorry, but I haven't heard of Nietzsche having proposed such an argument. Perhaps you can quote the full argument that Nietzsche uses, with the appropriate sources to confirm that it really was him who said this, and not someone else.

Pullman's trilogy doesn't address the EXISTENCE of God, just the control of believers by "the establishment" and the affects of Christian dogma (or Christian psychology?) on the individual and his ability to realise his personal potential.

And I think Nietzsche is a reasonable comparison here. Without engaging in theological discussion over the actual EXISTENCE of God (the Christian one or any other), he despised Christianity, because he felt that it weakened and feminized men and contributed to turning people into sheep terrified of being (or being thought) "sinful" for not living their lives according to self-denying Christian principles.

Again Christianity holds that man is a mere creature of the deity's will, and yet insists that the individual be judged and punished for his acts. In other words, it tries to carry free will on one shoulder and determinism on the other, and its doctors and sages have themselves shown that they recognize the absurdity of this by their constant, but futile efforts to decide which of the two shall be abandoned. This contradiction is a legacy from Judaism, and Mohammedanism suffers from it, too. Those sects which have sought to remove it by an entire acceptance of determinism - under the name of predestination, fatalism, or what not - have become bogged in hopeless morasses of unreason and dogmatism. It is a cardinal doctrine of Presbyterianism, for instance, that "by the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life and others foreordained to everlasting death...without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions...."((8)) In other words, no matter how faithfully one man tries to follow in the footsteps of Christ, he may go to hell, and no matter how impiously another sins, he may be foreordained for heaven. That such a belief makes all religion, faith and morality absurd is apparent. That it is, at bottom, utterly unthinkable to a reasoning being is also plain.

It was dangerous to him (like democracy), because it discouraged individual achievement and the assertion of leadership (source, Beyond Good and Evil), creating a barrier to what he called the "will to power."

He also, btw, famously said (or had the "madman" say) "God is dead" (Thus Spoke Zarathustra), and it's pretty clear that he believed that (in the modern age) it was unreasable for people to believe in God. I think it would be VERY difficult to read belief in the existence of God into Nietzsche, although I would interested in seeing someone try.....

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

– Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125, tr. Walter Kaufmann

Pullman's opposition to dogma is, in my reading anyway, more attractive than Nietzsche's, but I can see the parallel between the two men that greg is drawing--and like he says, Nietzsche is deeper reading than Pullman... but then again, Nietzsche didn't write children's books.

I have to stop you right there, because it strikes me that Nietzsche is making a common misconception, one that many European people make today. It is quite possible that Pullman is making the same misconception.

Scorpiomover, I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't speaking to whether or not Nietzsche was right or wrong, but rather to the question of whether or not he was a relevant subject to raise in regard to Pullman. As with most philosophers, I think there are valuable things to take away from his writings, and less valuable ones.

As for your critique of Nietzsche and his understanding of his context: I don't really agree with your analysis of European history and/or its influences--or with your criticism of Nietzsche's ideas about the "problem" he felt that he was addressing in his time. But I don't think that this is the right place to debate those things.

I will say, however, that I read Pullman's trilogy as about the manipulation of religious dogma for the sake of power... obviously political power. It's not as if these things (secular and spiritual authority) have ever been wholly separate, and I think you are misinterpreting Pullman if you think he doesn't recognize their relationship.

Pullman's trilogy doesn't address the EXISTENCE of God, just the control of believers by "the establishment" and the affects of Christian dogma (or Christian psychology?) on the individual and his ability to realise his personal potential.