I'm not COMPARING atheism to filth.

I'm saying that atheism IS filth in the sight of God (according to His word).

If you have TRULY read the Bible, you know that, since it is clearly stated over and over.

Yes, God is a "zealot" when it comes to worshiping Him and Him alone. And, yes, people (including Phillip Pullman) do say lots of nasty things about Him and (by association or direct attacks) His believers.

And why are you not being honest? If you read this thread or any others populated by dedicated, devoted atheists, you immediately notice the condescending tone, snarkiness, and outright hatred of most atheists toward religion in general and Christianity in general. Do you deny that most atheists consider belief in God to be utter foolishness? And you don't think that this "philosophy" (a belief in nothing...not exactly an "enlightened" philosophy)...is not offensive???

The difference is that I fully acknowledge that Christianity, by definition, is offensive to pagans and should never pretend to be otherwise (unlike your depiction of atheism, which is inaccurate). After all, Christianity attacks the ego of atheists most of all...which tends to be their stumbling point. Of course, as a Reformed Christian, I fully believe in the power of the Holy Spirit to regenerate the heart even the most degenerate of men (the apostle Paul being a prime example).

Pot, meet kettle.

So you don't think that there is any correlation between the success of a film and the resulting increase in book sales. Ever check out the Amazon sales lists after a book-based movie hits the theater?

So you're saying that if Disney filmed "Mein Kamp" as a children's tale and released it, you would say that Jewish people should take their children to the film and ignore its hate-filled source? And that to do otherwise would be 'excessive'?

I have the Pullman trilogy on my shelf. To say that depicting God as an evil person and that the theology advanced by his church is merely "anti-Catholic" and not offensive to believers in general is simply not true...at least, not to this Protestant and my friends.

I don't understand where I've been trumped to the point where you can say "Pot, meet kettle." I think the difference here is that I'm trying to actually have a discussion, and you're more interested in proselytizing. That's a shame.

Do you also consider anyone not of the Christian faith, regardless of their own personal religion or philosophy, to be filth as well, I wonder?

Edit: I do find it interesting that you compare atheism to movements such as the KKK and Nazism, given that atheism by itself (i.e. not attached to a larger and overriding philosophy such as Communism) has, as a movement, generally not called for the physical harm or extermination of people who are not atheists. Whereas many Christian organizations throughout history have harmed, tortured, and exterminated people who did not believe as they did.

No, atheism only calls for the eternal damnation of people. Not at all harmful.

I expected you to mention the "pot-kettle" analogy when I wrote it...and was a little hesitant because I knew that my actual meaning was unclear. To clarify, I am not saying that both views are hypocritical...it was just an attempt to draw attention that atheistic zealots are guilty of the same flaws as those they accuse religious "zealots" of possessing. You think you are absolutely right in your "philosophy"...I know I am right. Where is the difference? Why is one view "close-minded" and the other "broad-minded"? Are you saying that you are open to the possibility that God actually exists and that you will be held accountable on Judgment Day (and will have to explain to God why denying His existence and mocking His believers was not "offensive")?

Atheism is the MOST harmful "belief" that could ever exist since it permits absolutely ANY behavior. In the absence of absolute truth, activities such as murder, rape, torture, etc. have to be condoned by the non-hypocritical and "open-minded", non-judgmental atheist since there is no enforceable truth. The only law is the law of the jungle...might makes right (although there is no consistent "right" or "wrong" to a "consistent" atheist). To a true atheist, terms such as 'ethics', 'right', 'morality', etc. have absolutely no meaning except to each individual. You have just as much 'right' to murder me as I do to live.

Try applying that view consistently to a society and see how long this so-called "philosophy" remains harmless.

And, to answer your earlier, question regarding "filth", I defer to God's opinion. Yes, He does regard all those who are not the elect to be 'filth'...as even the elect were before being redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.

Your argument is with the God of the Bible, not with me.

Why is it that, when atheists discuss their beliefs, it is only a "discussion"...while when Christians discuss their beliefs, it is "proselytizing"?

:eek: Wow!

I learned decades ago that it was pointless to discuss reason versus religion. My hat's off to Supermallet for giving it a try. But it remains pointless, as the post above demonstrates.

Most atheists are completely open to this possibility, and will consider it if given reason to.

Holy cow! That post is something else.

There are three things I no longer discuss: Religion, Politics & Star Wars.

All lead to overzealous debate and anger.

It just depresses me that people feel the way Creekdripper feels--that atheists somehow have no moral compass just because they don't believe a certain way or read some old book. As if morality isn't hard-wired into humans. I read his posts and I wonder, really, how many religious people feel that strongly (and, in my view, wrongly)?

And I do also wonder how many people who hold such beliefs have come into those beliefs on their own, after careful spritual consideration, or were indoctrinated that way from birth.

For my own part, yes, I discuss various religions with my 7-year-old daughter, and we have visited two churches of different faiths. She has had questions about her religious friends, and we have talked about the differences that people have in their beliefs.

As I've said from the start, I have no problem with people who practice their beliefs modestly and quietly. I only get riled up when all that crap gets in my face. Then you'll hear from me. :)

Wrong.

One can choose not to believe in God (like you chose to believe in God) and still believe that they have no right to harm another person. I don't need a religious foundation to know that killing my neighbor is wrong.

Your arguments are extremely childish and without any sort of logical or theological merits. It's obvious you don't like anyone who doesn't believe the way you believe and you'll say anything to justify those feelings.

It's sad.

first off, I would like to say that I'm jewish and I would love to see a 2D-animated or 3D-pixar version of "Mein Kamp." I would be first in line to support that film that strays from typical animated crap such as CARS and BEE MOVIE. Furthermore, there is nothing more consistently entertaining than seeing nazis and KKK Klansmen in movies. Eventhough my great-grandparents had suffered to the horrors of the nazis, I can honestly say that nazis/klansmen in movies doing their evil deeds or getting their asses kicked is highly entertaining. I've seen tons of nazi/kkk/ww2 movies and I can only honestly say that there's only been one awful, laugh-out loud, it's so bad one - The Grey Zone.

Second, it's hard to take any of you preachy Christians seriously when THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST is your holy grail family film about "love?" You took your children to see this violent film?

http://findepartie.hautetfort.com/im...hrist_sang.jpg
http://www.bryanturner.org/evangelis...s_on_Cross.png
http://www.maniacworld.com/The-Passi...The-Christ.jpg
http://www.spiritlessons.com/images/..._Christ_29.jpg


Sure, Passion of the Christ may be important, but come on, it's a viscious violent film, nothing about love. I say show them Jesus Christ Superstar, much more fun and catchier tunes for the kids...I love Schindler's List, but I wouldn't let my children see Schindler's List till they are older...


And third, The Golden Compass is a very fair, incomplete, forgettable film. It shouldn't be given a fuss about it being an athiest film. It's the same as the church calling ENCINO MAN an athiest film...It's just a film that shouldn't be made a big deal over, cuz it more or less sucks and has no impact on society.


And lastly, anyone who actively argues over beliefs/religion are the most destructive people in society, causing murders, deaths, wars. You all know it's a never-ending argument of pointing fingers, who's right/wrong, and miscommunication. As long as it's argued/debated over, regardless of own's belief, that's the problem. The non-active ones are the ones who don't actively make a fuss or make it a big deal.

Word! (I think that's what the kids say now?)

I don't need a morality of a religion to tell me killing people is wrong. It's always wrong to harm people. If anything, I'm probably classified as a secular humanist. Google it, religious zealots.

From your perspective. To a Muslim, your belief system calls for the eternal damnation of people. Funny how everyone seems to think their own belief is the one that will grant them entry to heaven.

You are right that zealotry from any point of view is a bad thing. Atheists, like any other group, should be able to have a live and let live policy. However, I would like to ask what have I said or done that makes you think I'm a zealot? Is it the mere fact that I even question that God may exist? Is that enough to mark me a zealot? If so, I'd be afraid to live in a world where your view predominates.

You're extrapolating. What you're talking about is Anarchism, not Atheism. Atheism is defined only as far as it relates to a person's beliefs on deities. It is in fact quite easy to have morals without some threat of heaven or hell to guide your actions. Ever heard of the Golden Rule? Treat others as you wish to be treated. That alone would prevent murder, theft, and many other crimes. I would say that adherence to this rule is, in fact, more ethical than simply following the rules of your religion because you're afraid you'd be going to hell if you didn't. Many atheists are secular humanists. I don't see that as a negative thing at all. Again, how many atheist groups (and again, I'm defining this a group whose common interest is atheism, not a political movement like Communism) are calling for the imprisonment, torture, and death of non-atheists?

My argument is with your interpretation of the Bible. I was always taught that Jesus was a loving and forgiving figure. Was he not accepting of people and groups that others of the period shunned? Don't Christians strive to be more like Jesus? And God told the Jews that they were his Chosen People, so I don't see how he would have considered them "filth" prior to the time of Jesus. And what about religions like Islam, which do believe in Jesus, but as a Prophet of God, or Hinduism, which is so flexible that many Hindus pray to Jesus among a host of other deities?

Because I'm trying to understand your position. You're not making any attempt to do the same.

I just got back and I have to say that TGC was a lot better than I had been led to believe based on some of the comments here and reviews. This reminds me that I need to stick to my, "SEE IT FOR MY SELF BECAUSE NO REVIEWER CAN KNOW BETTER THAN <i>ME</i> WHAT <i>I</i> LIKE OR WON'T LIKE" rule. I'm sure the fact that I didn't read the books has something to do with liking this film; and much like "Lord of the Rings" films, this film makes me want to read the book series.

I came out of it entertained and I look forward to the next installment.

...and I still don't buy the Boycott excuse for the poor Box office. :p

I'm reading the book before seeing the movie and I'm enjoying it. If the movie can capture enough of this story in 2+ hours of film it should be quite good. I'll probably go and see the movie on Christmas day. That seems fitting to me.

The weird thing is I dismissed this film when first seeing the trailer. I was too old to have read the books as a kid and it was not a major fantasy series. I have to thank the controversy for getting me to read the books and see the movie. It did struggle in the US, but I doubt much of that is due to religious boycotts. Most people I know had simply never heard of the books it is based on. This seemed more of a vehicle for Europe where I think it did quite well. Maybe not enough for a sequel, but I would wait to see the DVD sales before giving up all hope on that.

Apart from this Thread, I've heard nothing of a boycott. Not in any local paper, news report, movie theater or radio broadcast. And I live near LA (and work in Glendale) - Not one word of a boycott.

Boycott is definitely not behind it's box office take.

Maybe in LA. But if you think no one in the country abided by their church bulletins by keeping their kids away from this film, you are certainly mistaken. It wasn't the only factor, but it was a factor.

TGC is doing a lot better outside of the US. And I'm sure I would have liked it more had I not read the books and thus laid the foundation for disappointment (in no way is a film version of a book always disappointing as LOTR attests but it was in this case).

Just an aside on a film that was a huge hit outside of the US, particularly in Europe, and was a complete unmarketed flop in the US (much more lopsidedly than TGC): Perfume - The Story of a Murderer. 1.6% of its box office was domestic. It most certainly is not for everybody but I and many people I have talked to who did see it thought it was one of the best films of 2006. I highly recommend it.

Regarding creekdipper, I didn't bother to reply although I used to. We have always seen posts such as that irrational, insulting garbage and always will. And it comes from a few members on both sides.

I still need to see Perfume, now that you mention it.

I am also part of the minority here who liked the movie and I've read the books, albeit not recently. I even went back to see it again two days later to look at specific criticisms mentioned in this thread. I came away from the second viewing liking it more the second time and utterly baffled by the criticisms, some of which were just plain wrong and others with which I just disagree. An acquaintance and his wife were at that second showing and they enjoyed it too; they hadn't read the books.

But I agree that the boycott attempts probably aren't the main reason the movie did poorly at the box office.

I guess I'll be one of the few who happily buy the HD DVD — if New Line releases it on that format — or the BD if Warner/New Line goes Blu-ray exclusive by then.

Went and watched it today after just reading the book. Obviously the changes jumped out at me, but they did in LOTR as well and I still loved those movies. That said this movie is not on that level and the major problem was time. In an age where every movie including comedies seem to go on too long they cut a fantasy epic to under 2 hours. It is mind boggling and caused many of the problems with the film. The could have polished the story much better with another 30 - 40 minutes of run time.

All and all I enjoyed the movie (as average as it was) and am glad I went to see it. I can only hope the DVD release is a longer cut that fills in more of the story.

I can only hope the film and the controversy entice more people to read the vastly superior novels.

Yeah I never checked the run time on this film and the funny thing is I went in assuming it was <i>at least</i> 2 1/2 hours.:lol: I like long movies and I was kinda shocked when it ended so soon. I would love to see an extended version of TGC.

While I would be pleased with a longer version, I have my doubts that there is much additional material to be had. Movies using child actors tend to be constrained by the amount of time that they can work, leading to more condensed screenplays and shooting schedules.

I guess we shall see.

Just got back from seeing it again. Loved it even more the second time. And, get this, the theater was PACKED! I expected no one to be there. But it was near sold out. Big theater too. Anyway, the movie is kicking ass at the box-office everywhere but America.

Considering how it was edited I think you are right. The novel had 5 main sections and they essential cut the 5th section out of the movie with the exception of the bear fight which they dropped in earlier than it really happens in the novel. If they had actually filmed the real end of the book you figure they probably would have used it instead of ending where they did.

I guess they planned on starting the sequel (which there probably won't be now) with the end of the first book, but that seems a rather awkward way to start the story of the second book.

It's at $187 million foreign box office and is expected to reach $250 million. Add in the US and it will end up well over $300 million and presumably make a profit even before the DVD sales and rentals and TV rights money kick in. Certainly it's no LOTR but I don't see New Line crying over it. This ought to justify Parts 2 and 3 and maybe the DVD will gain more fans, especially if it has a better cut (I hope).