I do my best to stay out of these arguments simply because I see so much ignorance in those who proclaim themselves enlightened; particularly lacking in their capacity for reasonable argument, rationale, logic, and tolerance for another's belief/opinion/view...
...but that is plain stupid.
Having read the trilogy myself (and hoping to see the film of the first book soon) I found the whole thing to be a wonderful, enchanting, absorbing, and entirely fantastical children's tale. True, it touched in subtle ways upon many subjects that children will, in their inevitable way, grow to be exposed to. It has elements of spirituality, religion, magic, etc, etc... but in no more ways than something far heavier, like (for instance) Lord of The Rings (ooh, goblins, evil sorcerors, etc). It will be a shame if the film really has 'watered down his critique', as I found Pullman's approach to the subject highly refreshing and thought provoking.
This strikes me as yet another argument instigated by those who advocate the enforced ignorance and carefully crafted indoctrination of the masses.
You might as well accuse the author of selling 'free thinking' or 'imagination' to children. In a way, I think that's exactly what they're taking exception to.
What a total great steaming pile of ****. Ooh, Im angry.
I must say that I'm shocked by the reaction of the Catholic quarter; a positive response from a church representative of the most active stupefaction of the masses was rather unexpected. A church responsible for ensuring the continuing third-world status of Ireland, for example, really should be condemning this work as that of Satan herself, or something. Perhaps they're being crafty?? *shifty look*
EDIT: I knew I'd posted it somewhere - I enjoyed the trilogy so much, I was heart-broken to have reached the end of it: His Dark Materials
1) From what I've been reading, no...it isn't selling atheism. It does seem to be selling the idea of not blindly accepting authority... The books are seemingly more strongly stated than the movie though.
2) If it were, or if it is....so what??
How many movies, books, tv shows, magazines, politicians, teachers, singers, and preachers do we have selling religion to kids?
If you are a religious person, and are intent on imparting your religious beliefs on your children...do you not have faith that you have done so in such a way that seeing an adventure movie that may or may not hint at corruption in religion will not be earth shattering to those beliefs?
I would be genuinely interested in hearing from someone who has such concerns...
quote: DL-44 said:
If you are a religious person, and are intent on imparting your religious beliefs on your children...do you not have faith that you have done so in such a way that seeing an adventure movie that may or may not hint at corruption in religion will not be earth shattering to those beliefs?
OK, I'll bite.
The answer is....
"No." I mean "Yes." Not as in, "Yes, I do not have faith," but "Yes, I do have faith." Tricky wording.
But, like you said, I don't think we really have anything to get up in arms about when plenty of media sells religion to kids. My take on this? Parents, be parents. Don't try to pass off the responsibility for teaching your children on censors (said the man with no children ).
Parents, be parents. Don't try to pass off the responsibility for teaching your children on censors (said the man with no children )
That's what it comes down to, and you don't have to be a parent to understand that. Of course, my hope would be that such a movie would encourage discussion rather than encourage boycott and outrage...
quote:I must say that I'm shocked by the reaction of the Catholic quarter; a positive response from a church representative of the most active stupefaction of the masses was rather unexpected. A church responsible for ensuring the continuing third-world status of Ireland, for example, really should be condemning this work as that of Satan herself, or something. Perhaps they're being crafty?? *shifty look*
For the record, the USCCB has rated the movie A-II which means ok for adults and their children. I think you may be referring to the Protestant Sects boycotts.
quote:...and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops rates the film "intelligent and well-crafted entertainment."
Inversely:
quote:In early October, the New York-based Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights launched a boycott of the film, calling it "selling atheism to kids" at Christmastime in stealth fashion.
quote:...the movie already has been condemned by conservative Roman Catholics and evangelicals.
My ironic intentions are rarely well expressed in my posts - apologies for the confusion.
quote:Catholic author Sandra Miesel is among those who call "His Dark Materials" the "anti-Narnia." Miesel co-authored a forthcoming book, "Pied Piper of Atheism: Philip Pullman and Children's Fantasy."
Among her complaints: Every clergy person is evil, and their daemons typically take the form of snakes or frogs. And standing in contrast to the Christian belief in heaven, Pullman's afterlife consists of bodies breaking into particles and being recycled into the material world.
...and so, as usual, to express the idea of anything other than what is indoctrinated incites a charge of heresy.
The trilogy's narrative might be considered a little provocative (of thought, perhaps), but from what I read, the movie cuts a lot of material. I'm going to have to see the movie to really make fair comment , to be honest.
There are certain groups and many individuals with no official ties to the vatican who try to speak for the RCC and they have their own opinions...Though the Catholic League is good at trying to fight discrimination against the Catholic Church they do not have the official status as the USCCB.
Since the USCCB represents the official Vatican See,...members should look to their stamp of approval or disapproval...They do say don't go see it..They rate according to what our beliefs are. Many members look to the USCCB for rating when a movie comes out and they
make their own judgments to seeing it or not.
I see a typo on my last post I meant the USCCB say, "They don't say don't go see it"
Even on all the hype on the Divinci (sp?) Code...they did not say don't go see it..
I saw it and it was really not a good movie to me...even if I wasn't Catholic I would
of thought the same thing.
Jade: da Vinci as in Leonardo da Vinci (from Vinci)
About Golden Compass ... I bought the book a few days ago and finished reading it yesterday. Haven't seen the movie yet. I'd say the book is 100% fantasy adventure and the story takes place in an alternative world which rather accidentally has a few similar terms such as Oxford, church, bears, Lapland (and demons) none of which actually mean the same thing as in the real world. One could certainly draw parallels though.
The author definitely portrays the fantasy church as something powerful, deceptive and evil but I don't think that this was the author's message.
I really enjoyed reading the three books in "His Mark Materials" a couple of years back. The authors device of a daemon I thought quite brilliant.
The question of it "selling atheism to kids" is preposterous, rather, look at the sheer weight of consumerism blighting society never mind Christmas. I do think that an authors views can and do permeate the topics that they are writing about, and these are the views of Mr Pullman, view that I am in complete concordance with.
Those who look for monsters should look to it that
they do not become monsters. For when you gaze
long into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.
I was wondering the same thing in regard to the "hype" made of being a anti-Christian movie.
Just because it was written by an atheist. I think we are just playing into the hands of
the film industry. My friend went to see the Golden Compass this weekend and said there was
no mention of God in the movie and to her it was not that good.
For Christians, I think there are way more blasphemous and anti-Christian living movies out
there that Christians think are ok to see. For instance, in the movie The Departed, there
was profanity all over the place. The word "fuck" was used repeatedly especially
when "fuck your mother" line was used. How horrible. But it was listed as a great
movie and won awards by the film industry. No Christian group decried it vocally.
Movies with sex, nudity, profanity, violence against women, murder are viewed as ok to watch and no
religious group is crying vocally about them. The TV series "Friends" which I have never
watched because I did not take an interest, advocated sleeping around but then was highly
rated as a great and favorite series by many Christians I know. See...this does not make
sense to me..
I was wondering the same thing in regard to the "hype" made of being a anti-Christian movie. Just because it was written by an atheist.
Well, I think it would be a bit of a simplification to say that the film is being denounced "just because it was written by an atheist." I have not read Pullman's works, but my impression is that they do portray established religion in a less than positive light.
This is why films like this are protested, whereas films and TV shows like "The Departed" and "Friends" are not. The latter may not agree with or espouse Christian values, but they don't actively seek to counter the claims of religion or attack the established tenets. Whether or not media like this are more effective at diluting Christian values is another story, but it seems pretty obvious to me why they are not being protested. Films that are perceived as directly attacking religion or Christianity may cause a stir, but other media that is not considered related to the issue of religion at all will not.
quote:The TV series "Friends" which I have never watched because I did not take an interest, advocated sleeping around but then was highly rated as a great and favorite series by many Christians I know.
I'm sorry, but I have to call you on this one. If you never watched "Friends," how do you know what it advocated? All you can really say is that you know what some people have claimed it advocated, right? "Friends" was a very popular TV show over here, and they still show reruns all the time. My wife enjoys it, and I will sometimes watch it with her. Saying that the show "advocates" sleeping around is like saying a documentary about Auschwitz advocates killing undesirables. OK, so maybe that's a harsh comparison, but "Friends" merely depicts people sleeping around (and, honestly, I don't think it's really that big a part of the show, or as big a deal as you seem to think it is) because this is the socially and culturally accepted reality. If depicting something means advocating that something, I think a lot of people are going to be surprised about what you assume they believe.
The fact is that we live in the real world, and however much we may dislike certain aspects of that world, we can't just pretend that they don't exist. If a (comedy, mind you) show about a group of young people in New York didn't involve dating and "sleeping around," it would be quite removed from reality. The reason that a lot of people enjoyed the show was because they could relate to it. In fact, if you look at most comedy shows, you'll notice that they're tied in very closely with reality. You may be able to make an art film or a show in another genre that is divorced from reality, but if a comedy is not accessible, it's not going to be funny. OK, I'm kind of getting off track here, but the bottom line is that I do not believe that either "Friends" or the people who made it are out to tear down the foundations of the Christian faith. I also think that trying to shelter people from reality is probably not the best way to foster a life of true faith. There is a balance, of course, and we have to be careful of what we subject ourselves to, but attempting to close ourselves off from the real world is only going to lead to culture shock when the real world eventually leaks in. And a faith untested is less likely to stand firm.
This post is a little bit scattered, I know, but hopefully I actually made a point here.
quote:OK, so maybe that's a harsh comparison, but "Friends" merely depicts people sleeping around (and, honestly, I don't think it's really that big a part of the show, or as big a deal as you seem to think it is) because this is the socially and culturally accepted reality. If depicting something means advocating that something, I think a lot of people are going to be surprised about what you assume they believe.
To me...Suho...though you are very correct in respsonse to movies, tv shows,,etc depicting reality.. For Christians and I mean for those who really are trying to be good Christians in every sense of what being a devout, not cold, not lukewarm but hot with the the fire of love for Christ and his teachings, should we accept socially and culturally that sleeping around is part of life. Should we just shrug and look the other way and say it doesn't involve me or my life and just about everybody is doing it so why the big deal. For me this is just giving in to what the opposite of Good wants us to definitely feel. I am speaking for me and not pointing anyone out here this forum. For me,, and this is just the way I believe, it degrades to human body when its shared many times with no love. And this is what bothers me about movies, shows, etc...that many young children and adults think its ok. I know in the end it all comes down to family upbringing in morality and responsiblity. But you have to agree that the media controls the masses in every area of peoples lives...What you see on the screen has definitely shaped many young to adult lives especially in the area of sexual relationships.
Should we just shrug and look the other way and say it doesn't involve me or my life
Yes.
That is exactly what you should do.
As for the media controlling young people's sexual relationships...how then do you explain that nothing has changed in that regard for thousands of years?
For Christians and I mean for those who really are trying to be good Christians in every sense of what being a devout, not cold, not lukewarm but hot with the the fire of love for Christ and his teachings, should we accept socially and culturally that sleeping around is part of life. Should we just shrug and look the other way and say it doesn't involve me or my life and just about everybody is doing it so why the big deal. For me this is just giving in to what the opposite of Good wants us to definitely feel. I am speaking for me and not pointing anyone out here this forum. For me,, and this is just the way I believe, it degrades to human body when its shared many times with no love. And this is what bothers me about movies, shows, etc...that many young children and adults think its ok. I know in the end it all comes down to family upbringing in morality and responsiblity. But you have to agree that the media controls the masses in every area of peoples lives...What you see on the screen has definitely shaped many young to adult lives especially in the area of sexual relationships.
I never said you had to accept what is being portrayed into your own personal value system. As individuals, we have the right to live our lives the way we choose. If you choose not to watch certain forms of media because you believe they have a bad influence on you, that is your right, and I admire your strength of character.
However, I do not agree that "the media controls the masses in every area of peoples' lives." Does what we see and hear influence our way of thinking? Most certainly. Everyone is influenced to some extent by their culture. But does this mean that these influences "control" us? It most certainly does not. Are you saying that we are all mindless drones who are buffeted and blown whichever way the media winds blow? Would you really so easily strip us of the ability to think for ourselves?
I want to emphasize this: if you feel that your relationship with God is better served by avoiding certain forms of media, then I think you need to do what you feel is right in your spirit. If you feel that certain forms of media might have a negative effect on your children, it is your right to forbid them from watching this media, at least up to a certain age. But every individual has to make these choices for themselves at some point. Not being a parent myself, I would not presume to tell anyone how to raise their children or others, but it would seem to me that education and proper knowledge, rather than ignorance, are the most effective defenses against negative influences.
But I'm getting off track a little (yet again). The point I want to make is that the choices you make as an individual concerning what media you consume are within your rights. But once you start deciding what other people can consume, you have crossed a line. Morality cannot be legislated or enforced. While it is true that many of our laws punish acts that most would consider immoral, these acts are not punished because they are considered immoral--they are punished because they threaten to break the bonds that hold society together. At least in free, democratic countries like the United States, individual choice is still respected in most areas as long as that choice does not result in harm to society in general. Most sane individuals agree that murder and theft are very detrimental to society. But there is disagreement as to whether or not sexual promiscuity is also detrimental. Many people accept it as a fact of life. I'm sure you can see the difference here.
Important note: I am aware that you have not explicitly advocated enforcing morality on others, but it seems to me that this is where your argument is leading. If I have misconstrued your posts, please let me know. In fact, I have heard how you feel about certain forms of media, but I would like to hear what exactly you think should be done about them. Is there some course of action that you feel should be taken?
quote:In fact, I have heard how you feel about certain forms of media, but I would like to hear what exactly you think should be done about them. Is there some course of action that you feel should be taken?
I always hope for a better world. I just believe persons who are given & able to posess with reason and good can stop giving into their animalistic nature.
Well the only one thing I can say for sure is "I can pray for change for the very disturbed in the world we live in." I believe prayer with many can literally move mountains"...But, what I pray most about is that some Christians not take a defeatist attitude like " since its the way of the world in these times even if its contrary to what I believe, how can I make a difference." This is a weakness of which many of us are guilty of. Rather than be vocal and pray against it we become one with it. Before in older times sexual promiscuity was done with guilt or remorse and in hiding. Now, its considered a way of living to check out someone before you marry to see if they are compatible then maybe I will one day marry them or maybe not. Or maybe just to have a mate to keep me warm with no commitment. Its like trying on a shoe that fits but when it becomes worn or you tire of them & buy another new pair for newness. Its fear of trust and commitment. Many persons don't want to commit for fear of loosing or to settle for less. I know of many Christians who live together without commitment and think it has no bearing or their faith...Like I am an adult and I can decide what I want.. Which is fine for them.. But don't say you are Christian and then live against Christ teachings. Then be a strong advocate for Christianity. One tends to take these persons as not being a serious Christian. Followers will follow one who does a good job of trying to be a good model of Christian life.
Christians are called to be Christ-like....that is what being a Christian is about. Teach Christianity and when its necessary use words. A certain friend of mine goes to Pentecostal church and is very spirit filled but she goes to clubs to look for guys and maybe if she is lucky she thinks, she can end up with a nice guy as a possible boyfriend but before then she sleeps, and sleeps with him on a regular basis...Then she comes to church and praises the Lord like her sex life has no bearing on her faith. Her faith is about her relationship with God and if she knows its not right, its between her and God.
Suho...you know its not for me to judge and she knows how I believe. The subject of her love life is something we talk about and she knows I condone promescuity, etc...but as a person who thinks this way... she could be the victim in a society that has given in to the way society has viewed sexual promiscuity like its not a big deal in regard to being Christian.
I just believe persons who are given & able to posess with reason and good can stop giving into their animalistic nature.
The two are not mutually exclusive by any means.
quote:
Before in older times sexual promiscuity was done with guilt or remorse and in hiding.
1) when and where was this??
2) so...*being* sexually promiscuous is ok....as long as we *pretend* that we don't condone such activity? I will say that as silly a notion as that is, it is at least consistent with the behavior of a great number of religious people.
Regardless, none of your post has anything to do with the role of the media, and says nothing about how viewing a television show that includes things like...people having sex without being married...has any role in the overall sexual activity of society.
As Suho said, such lifestyles are there without the need for television shows that depict them. And as I said, they always have been...long before television was there to depict them...
Well the only one thing I can say for sure is "I can pray for change for the very disturbed in the world we live in." I believe prayer with many can literally move mountains"
OK. I'll buy that.
quote:...But, what I pray most about is that some Christians not take a defeatist attitude like " since its the way of the world in these times even if its contrary to what I believe, how can I make a difference."
I see what you're saying here, but I think there is a difference between accepting reality and being defeatist. The bottom line is that you cannot change the way people think or act. Attempt to do so and you will only inspire resentment. What I really want to hear is what sort of difference you want to make. If you're talking about making a difference in your own life or in the lives of your family members, I say go for it. If you're talking about having a positive influence on others through your actions, that's fine. But if you're talking about changing society, that means you want to change the way people think and act. And, like I said, that can't be done.
quote:Before in older times sexual promiscuity was done with guilt or remorse and in hiding.
Again, I'm sorry, but (like DL) I'm going to have to call you on this. What "older times" are we talking about? Biblical times? I've been reading the book of Proverbs during my daily meditations these days, and the most vivid depiction of wickedness is the image of the seductress who stands out by the street and lures men to her bed while her husband is away. The text makes it very clear that this was neither done in hiding nor did those who engaged in it feel any particular guilt or remorse (if they did, the writer of Proverbs wouldn't have had to spend so much time denouncing it). Read the seventh chapter of Proverbs for a particularly descriptive image.
The fact of the matter is that sexual promiscuity has been around as long as men and women have had sexual urges. This is not something new. Even the attitudes toward sexual promiscuity aren't anything new. It is true that at certain points in our history, humanity has been more staid and proper than at other times, but it's more of a cycle than a progression in a single direction.
quote:I know of many Christians who live together without commitment and think it has no bearing or their faith...Like I am an adult and I can decide what I want.. Which is fine for them.. But don't say you are Christian and then live against Christ teachings.
This is a different story entirely, and I agree with you here. If you are going to call yourself a Christian, I believe you should live like a Christian. Sexual purity, though, is not the only aspect of Christian living. Though I may be pure and faithful to my wife, there are plenty of other areas in my life where I struggle. Thus I try not to judge. I know that you try not to judge as well. But I understand what you are saying.
However, talking about the Christian community and talking about society at large are two entirely different things. If you want to encourage your Christian friends to live pure lives, that's great. But you can't expect the rest of society to follow suit when they don't share our beliefs. This is not what you are asking, is it? Because it kind of seemed like that a few posts back.
quote:A certain friend of mine goes to Pentecostal church and is very spirit filled but she goes to clubs to look for guys and maybe if she is lucky she thinks, she can end up with a nice guy as a possible boyfriend but before then she sleeps, and sleeps with him on a regular basis...Then she comes to church and praises the Lord like her sex life has no bearing on her faith. Her faith is about her relationship with God and if she knows its not right, its between her and God.
I won't say anything about your friend, but I will reiterate what I said above: sexual promiscuity isn't the only sin out there. Nor do I think it's any worse than something like, say, hating your brother or gossiping. It might seem worse, but sin is sin. I'm not making a judgment on your friend or you or anyone else, I'm just saying we all have our thorns in our sides.
quote:she could be the victim in a society that has given in to the way society has viewed sexual promiscuity like its not a big deal in regard to being Christian.
So I guess the question is this: would it be easier for an individual to change their actions or for society as a whole to change so that it doesn't influence individuals to act in certain ways? It really comes down to where you place the responsibility for individual action: is the individual responsible for his or her actions, or is society to blame for the influence it has on that individual? I'm inclined to think the former--the problem isn't necessarily in social views or mores, it's in personal beliefs and convictions.
To illustrate my point, there are plenty of people, Christians even, who do things which are not condoned or advocated by society, and yet they still find ways to flee from their consciences. Putting the blame on society's influence is simply ignoring personal responsibility. Human beings will always find ways to justify their actions. Social influence is an easy one, but if it's not that, it will be something else. I'm not saying that there are not problems with society--I think everyone, Christian or no, will agree that we have problems--I'm just saying that change starts with the individual.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 12-13-2007 16:00
quote:If you're talking about making a difference in your own life or in the lives of your family members, I say go for it.
Could you please define what exactly you mean here, Master Suho?
It is one thing to make a difference in your own life (though I think that at least considering the consequences of such and how they affect family members should be taken into consideration, as well). It is another to try to make a difference in the lives of family members. IMHO, that is a very fine line to walk.
Would you please go into more detail about what you mean here?
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
Well, I was mainly talking about children. Despite some of the ideas that are floating around these days, I still think that parents should, within reason, be allowed to raise their children the way they see fit. Whether that be a religious upbringing, a secular upbringing, or whatever. I say "within reason," because no one wants to see children raised on hate and violence. But I'm not sure what to do about that. Where do you draw the line? How do you draw the line? How do you decide what is OK for parents to teach their children and what isn't. And how do we define "teach" anyway? When I first came to Korea, I was teaching English to one young boy who nonchalantly told me one day that he hated the Japanese and thought they should all die. I wonder where he learned this. I don't know if he got this from his parents or elsewhere, but I think it's safe to say that no one sat him down and said, "The Japanese are evil. They should all die." He just picked up on the hatred indirectly. In the same way, most of what parents "teach" their children is taught indirectly--children learn by watching what we say and do.
Anyway, yes, "family members" was a bit vague. Hopefully I've clarified.
(By the way, we haven't really defined what we mean by "making a difference." I've been taking my cue from Jade on this, and so far she's indicated that the only thing she can do is pray, and if that's the case, then the question is moot--I don't think praying for someone violates their right to choose how they want to live.)
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 12-14-2007 15:21
quote:I don't think praying for someone violates their right to choose how they want to live
Hehe...no, certainly not.
It always bothers me to see children pre-programmed in things where allowing them to make their own choices might be more prudent.
I do realize that such things like raising children is a personal thing, and a family thing, of course. To ignore that is to be naive.
Being that I have 3 children and that I am very active in the school system here in Germany (I am the substitute leader of the Parent/Teacher association), it is painful for me to observe the brainwashing that goes on.
Hatred, violence, religious fever and intolerance. I see alot of that being pre-programmed and "forced" upon alot of the children that I see on a daily basis, then I get to meet the parents of those children, and I see where it is coming from.
I am not saying that you, Master Suho, are guilty of such, btw. I think I can safely say, through the many years of observance on these forums that you are not prone to hatred, violence or intolerance. I also think you hold your religious fever in check...at least, I think so.
Of course, I could be wrong. Would not be the first time.
As for where I draw the line? I do not teach my children religion. They will come into contact with it soon enough, especially here in Germany where Religion is taught in the schools (thankfully one has the choice of not having to let one's child be in those classes). Before you jump up and down in glee, Jade, be aware that in this region, it is Evangelish Religion. I think in Bayern, they teach Catholic Religion, but I am not sure.
I try very hard to teach tolerence and not to be violent (but also not to be a victim). I guess time will show if I was successful, or not.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
I want to chime in on this controversy but I'm still doing my research. I am especially interested since my little girl is keen to see the movie... as am I!
From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth* Insane since: May 2004
posted 01-04-2008 07:31
I am still deciding on whether I want to go see this movie or not, but I do remember watching a film with similar hype: Happy Feet. It was an adorable movie with many well known actors and actresses in it...but you could tell that several main figures in the movie depicted religious leaders, based off secular stereotypes. I loved the idea of individuality and perseverance in the movie...but I was weary about the challenge of authority.
That seems to be the main thought of this movie: challenging the authority. I feel like this could be detrimental to teaching children. Hopefully they each have wonderful parents who will take them aside and talk to them for as long as it takes to help them understand what the themes of the movie relate to and how those themes relate to their lives. Unfortunately, that won't happen very much. Far too many children are going to watch this film and be affected by it, perhaps deeply, with no parental counseling.
I know that I am one of those people who are easily effected by a movie. I have to catch myself from imitating things I watch others do. Movies are particularly dangerous for me.
Personally, I think that these extremes should be told to the public. I'm glad the Christians are making a big deal out of this movie. It makes people approach it more cautiously. Just like Narnia, Happy Feet, Passion of the Christ, etc. They are all deep movies that need to be discussed. Hype is needed so that we WILL discuss these things in depth with those we trust.
"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD
I finally got around to seeing this film last weekend, and on the whole I would say I enjoyed it. There's still a lot to think about, but in brief, I never got the impression that it was "selling atheism." There are indeed "anti-religious" elements, if by "religion" you mean "an institution that keeps people ignorant and docile, claiming to do it for their own good but really doing it to maintain power." My own personal faith is something different, so I wasn't offended. Like I said, there's still a lot to think about. What I really want to do is get my hands on the books.
quote: Gideon said:
I do remember watching a film with similar hype: Happy Feet. It was an adorable movie with many well known actors and actresses in it...but you could tell that several main figures in the movie depicted religious leaders, based off secular stereotypes. I loved the idea of individuality and perseverance in the movie...but I was weary about the challenge of authority.
Wait, are you saying that Happy Feet was an anti-religious movie?
quote:That seems to be the main thought of this movie: challenging the authority. I feel like this could be detrimental to teaching children.
Are we talking about Happy Feet here or The Golden Compass?
Whichever the case, I don't think the main thought of either movie is "challenging authority." Rather, it is, "don't blindly accept as the truth whatever those in authority tell you." This is not the same as challenging authority. In essence, it is the quote from Tertullian at the end of your post.
quote:Hopefully they each have wonderful parents who will take them aside and talk to them for as long as it takes to help them understand what the themes of the movie relate to and how those themes relate to their lives. Unfortunately, that won't happen very much. Far too many children are going to watch this film and be affected by it, perhaps deeply, with no parental counseling.
I'm curious--what exactly do you think will happen to these children who are deeply affected by these films? You do realize that for centuries children's stories have played on the theme of a wicked or oppressive authority being overthrown by a lowly hero or heroine, right? These movies are just (two of many) modern adaptations of that theme. I will grant you that there is more going on in The Golden Compass, but you seem to be focusing specifically on this "challenging authority" theme, and I think your fears may be misplaced.
Far too many children are going to watch this film and be affected by it, perhaps deeply, with no parental counseling.
Suho covered one incredibly important point. Let me grab another -
That there is any concern over "this movie" planting the seeds of anarchy, atheism, or any other thing that some parents might find objectionable, then people *really* need to get a grip on reality.
That these books were written by an open atheist is the *only* reason religious groups are throwing a fit.
The number of films, books, magazines, web sites, tv shows, songs, videos, bill boards, t-shirts, tatoos, sky-writing, friends, relatives, teachers, and random strangers that will expose children to information and ideas that some parents will find objectionable, and that will affect children in a far greater extent than this movie is so ridiculously large that this movie really isn't worth mentioning in this context.
quote:The number of films, books, magazines, web sites, tv shows, songs, videos, bill boards, t-shirts, tatoos, sky-writing, friends, relatives, teachers, and random strangers that will expose children to information and ideas that some parents will find objectionable, and that will affect children in a far greater extent than this movie is so ridiculously large that this movie really isn't worth mentioning in this context.
I certainlly agree...with this whole thought. We cannot put or hide our children in confinement or a protection bubble. This is why the most imporatant thing for
parents to do is to teach by example."don't do what I say..more, do what I do" is
more like it. Actions speak louder than words. Its no great secret that according to the sciences..children imitate and learn what their parents do more that any other avenue of learning. Religions are here for this purpose...to guide and to help. Even parents who are were never schooled as parents to be good parents rely on religions to foster good living habits. And this will keep order in the household. It may not always work but its a good thing. There maybe rebellion but eventually childrens who were given foundations of moral good by example revert to believing and trusting down the road.
Some of the most f***ed-up people I have ever met were brought up by devoutly (and I mean devoutly) religious parents. Emotionally stunted and socially retarded, they were obviously the result of an attempt by their parents to protect them from the 'dark side'. So, no, you can't wrap your children up in a protective bubble - you just f*** them up.
Of course, it doesn't help that they lived in a country where the molestation of children by the clergy was persistently covered up by a religious authority that would rather pay the parents to shut up than strike off a child-raping priest. This is probably just what happens when you allow your faith to be dictated by men in the name of God.
On the other hand, letting children run riot doesn't help either.
Some of the most balanced people I've ever met were brought up by parents who were open and informative, and who gave them freedom of choice. Some of them were religious, but not because it had been rammed down their throats on a daily basis. Some of them weren't religious, but not because their parents rammed anti-religious rhetoric down their throats every day.
Ultimately, religion isn't about guidance. Religion is a personal choice based upon an animalistic need to believe in something higher than oneself (perhaps in order not to believe oneself quite so low). Organised religion on the other hand often claims to provide guidance; but unless one has made the choice to follow that guidance, it is simply a dictatorship, and as with any man-made dictatorship, it is open to abuse and extremism.
I was brought up by parents who both chose not to be religious (my mother had a horrific time learning what 'guidance' was all about in a Catholic school). I was given choice, and have chosen not to be religious as I have no need of religion. I do not, however, find it necessary to practice black arts, murder people, or generally spread anarchy and suffering into the world. My moral compass is self-governed, influenced by the guidance of my parents and my own intellect, and based upon my personally developed sense of right and wrong.
It seems to me that a vociferous few seem to think that nothing is of value to anyone unless it preaches religion, and credits its values as such. To suggest that morals may be taught without the threat of burning in hell eternally always risks the wrath of various followers of one faith or another. Thankfully, I hope, I live in a country where these people don't make the law - else we'd still be compelled to stone homosexuals to death on the street, or likewise young women on the doorstep of their father for sex out of wedlock.
Recently, a story featured in the papers about a young woman who was being put to death after being gang-raped. Ultimately, because she'd been chanced-upon by her rapists while in the company of a married man, she was guilty of infidelity and subject to the death penalty. There's moral guidance for you.
I thought to myself that I'm so glad I live in a country where I can draw a cartoon of Jesus, or perhaps see a great children's fiction turned into a film, without having enraged zealots baying for blood on the streets.
After doing some more digging I've concluded this movie is not "selling atheism" to kids, but that the books are intended to do so. The author has every right to do so by the way. I would certainly see C. S. Lewis' Narnia series as doing the same thing for Xianity.
quote: Suho1004 said:
I'm curious--what exactly do you think will happen to these children who are deeply affected by these films?
Suho, my concern would be that children would be diverted from a saving faith in God. I do not have this fear for my own child because I am there to guide her upbringing. (yes, WS, you can read guide as brainwash )
But I do wonder about kids who have only our media as their guide. DL, you make a perfectly valid point about the flood of other influences our kids have to deal with growing up. Where does one start when trying to combat the influences one believes to be harmful to the development of children? You've got to start somewhere or simply not bother. For Xians I would argue "not bothering" would indicate a dead faith, IM(not so)HO.
quote: DL-44 said:
That these books were written by an open atheist is the *only* reason religious groups are throwing a fit.
While I agree this is true for some, others are motivated by a true concern for the welfare of children growing up in this society.
I simply cannot accept that the highest ideal we hold up is to let children decide whatever they want. Which brings me to what you said, WH. You rail against the injustice done to that woman and rightly so, but you also said:
quote: White Hawk said:
I do not, however, find it necessary to practice black arts, murder people, or generally spread anarchy and suffering into the world. My moral compass is self-governed, influenced by the guidance of my parents and my own intellect, and based upon my personally developed sense of right and wrong.
Weren't the societal norms that you condemned above arrived at by other people's developed sense of right and wrong? You know I make moral judgments against a good many things based on what I believe God has spoken and take heat for it, but on what basis do you make your condemnation? I'm not trying to give you a hard time on this but am interested in knowing your thought process.
quote: WebShaman said:
I am not saying that you, Master Suho, are guilty of such, btw. I think I can safely say, through the many years of observance on these forums that you are not prone to hatred, violence or intolerance. I also think you hold your religious fever in check...at least, I think so.
If Master Suho has a temperature, perhaps we should get him some meds
WS, I think it is quite safe to say that Suho lacks any significant amount of hatred, violence and/or intolerance. But what exactly to you mean by keeping religious fervor in check? Would you include speaking out for your beliefs and working for social change in a society based on those beliefs? If all you mean is keeping the hatred, violence and intolerance in check then I'm right with you, since I would not consider those to have any basis in the teachings of Christ.
quote:Weren't the societal norms that you condemned above arrived at by other people's developed sense of right and wrong? You know I make moral judgments against a good many things based on what I believe God has spoken and take heat for it, but on what basis do you make your condemnation? I'm not trying to give you a hard time on this but am interested in knowing your thought process.
-Bugimus
It's hard to tell what you're actually asking me there. I can only reitterate my point; that wrong can be committed in the name of God as easily as for any other reason. There's the rub! As has been pointed out a million times (here and elsewhere) much has been done throughout history in the name of one religion or another that could (and should) be considered evil and corrupt. It's easy to pass these things off as acts of madness by zealots who should never have represented their faith. It's easy to pass off the evil acts of an individual who 'heard the word of god' as the result of psychosis.
It's just as easy to label the evil acts of a non-believer as being un-godly. It's easy to call an evil individual 'godless'.
Is it only once that act is performed that one can determine whether it was truly 'godly', or the demented behaviour of a madman?
Should I commit an act of evil in the name of God, or commit and act of good without any form of religious faith, one way or another, it comes down to my self-determined sense of whether what I do is right or wrong. That I might blame God, or credit my own values, is a matter of personal choice, the validity of which cannot be determined but against another's sense of whether what was done was right or wrong...
...in other words, I do what I believe is right by other people. I treat people as I wish to be treated, and show all the respect that I feel all are entitled to - and I do this off my own back. On the other hand, if I were to get things wrong (have a warp spasm and wake up in a bloodbath on the bus one day, for instance), I would say in all honesty that the only one to blame would be me.
I am a good human being. I say that without modesty because it is true. I am kind, generous, thoughtful, and do the best I can by all I cross paths with. I make mistakes, but honest ones, and I always make amends as best I can. I live, by all intents and purposes, a Godly and righteous life - just without the "Godly" bit, without religious faith, without prayer, and without randomly stoning young men to death because they walk a bit funny.
It doesn't matter how often someone spouts the tired old phrase "you're taking it out of context" because it comes down to this; if the context of these words of guidance can be interpreted wrongly, then you must make the determination of 'correct' context, and thereby define which passages are 'good guidance' and which are not. By this measure, a religious man's values are as much a matter of self-determination as those of the faithless man. If they both commit themselves to charitable and modest living, there is nothing to distinguish between their choices but in their reasons for choosing.
One's morals are determined by upbringing, genetics, experience, and chemistry. Whether one attributes one's behaviour to God or self-determination, one's morals are ultimately a matter of choice. Whether one is handed one's morals carved in stone, interprets what they should be from a very selective arrangement of exerpts from an old book of fables, or learns from experience and good parenting, the result is still personal choice, and will vary from one person to another regardless of their similarities.
While I agree this is true for some, others are motivated by a true concern for the welfare of children growing up in this society.
I simply cannot accept that the highest ideal we hold up is to let children decide whatever they want.
I have never said anything about simply letting children decide on their own, with no guidance from their parents.
Guidance from their parents is exactly the point I am trying to make. The people attacking this movie are not doing so in defense of christian orphans who might wonder into a theater to keep warm and accidentally be converted to atheists because nobody is their to protect them
They are doing so because they wish to abolish any expression of atheistic ideas, and would like us all to think that their children will be done irreparable harm by being exposed to such ideas.
I am quite certain that 1) their children have seen far far far worse things and 2) whatever ideas that a parent finds questionable in the movie can easily be dealt with, and no harm of any sort will be done.
I think you've answered my question without answering it directly. I'm pleased with it.
I'm hearing that you and I would basically agree on what is right and what is wrong. I attribute it ultimately to our Creator who wrote the sense of right and wrong on each of our hearts and I think you would attribute it to what you said but stop short of the God part.
I think there is a great deal of common ground on the issue of what is "moral". It's a good thing because that way our pluralistic society has a chance of lasting a few more years.
The main thing I was getting at in my question was whether or not you thought your sense of right and wrong was superior to someone else's and I was going to ask on what basis you could take that stand without being a hypocrite.
And I don't think you were starting to ramble at all
Ah, we're all hypocrites from time to time, and more so if we deny it.
Back when I thought I was a poet, I actually wrote a poem with more than a passing comment on moral hypocrisy. If you'd permit me to send it to you, I think you'd enjoy it; particularly if you makes you laugh rather than shake your head in dismay. I wish I could say my sense of humour was subtle, but I probably have to admit that Im just not all that funny.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 01-08-2008 22:24
quote:Suho, my concern would be that children would be diverted from a saving faith in God. I do not have this fear for my own child because I am there to guide her upbringing. (yes, WS, you can read guide as brainwash)
Yes, Bugs, I read that as brainwashing, and I hope for your children's sake that they are rebellious enough to resist enough of it to be able to think for themselves.
I have nothing against instilling a sense of what is allowed and not allowed, to be able to function in the society they are born into, and into this thing we call the human race and condition. To help them develope themselves, and to be the best that they can be. To encourage them to strive for betterment, to support them in their strengths, and help them overcome their weaknesses.
But brainwashing...I stop pretty much there. After all, it makes absolutely no real difference in the real world if they have faith in a God or not. Perhaps in the Afterlife, the Great Spaghetti Monster will pass judgement over those who did not have faith in him in Life.
I think what I mean here is, teach your children wisely, sure, and raise them the best that you are able. But don't brainwash them.
quote:WS, I think it is quite safe to say that Suho lacks any significant amount of hatred, violence and/or intolerance. But what exactly to you mean by keeping religious fervor in check? Would you include speaking out for your beliefs and working for social change in a society based on those beliefs? If all you mean is keeping the hatred, violence and intolerance in check then I'm right with you, since I would not consider those to have any basis in the teachings of Christ.
What I mean by that is that I do not know Master Suho to "jump on the bandwagon" and actively try to force his beliefs on others. I am aware that he is steadfast in his personal belief, yes. But certainly he has not attempted to force his belief on others in his many years here in the Asylum. Of course, I do not know him in real life, so I can not say with certainty if this is true. It is only the impression that I get from him here in the forums.
I consider actively brainwashing your kids, knowing that it is brainwashing and being aware that it is so to be forcing your beliefs on others who are not in a position to resist it (it is really an abuse of a position of power, and being that it is being done by a Parent, normally a trusted and loved one, that makes it all the more sick and twisted).
And for the record, I am not saying, nor am I suggesting, that children should be to left to decide whatever they want. In this, I am in agreeance with DL here in what he said in answer to that question.
I have also addressed the question, although it was not asked of me, specifically.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
I don't think it's a question of whether children will be brainwashed but rather who will do the brainwashing. There is simply no such thing as a neutral upbringing. If it's not the parent then it's the state or the TV or uncle Jim. This is one of the main reasons why I and others are concerned about what types of movies children will digest as they develop.
And I most certainly do my best to teach my kid how to think for herself. I want her to have the proper tools to get through this life as I'm sure you do for your kids. I just believe that it is also my duty to impart to her the most important tool that anyone can have in this life and that is a faith in the Great Maker. She can always reject it later if she decides to do that.
I find it so staggeringly obvious that faith in God does make a difference in this life that it floors me when you say it doesn't. Do you really believe that? For instance, I've heard from people who work in hospitals some of whom are religious and some who aren't that they've seen patients with faith do far better than those who don't. You don't even need to believe God exists to acknowledge that the act of faith is a powerful thing in this life.
Bugimus: I truly believe there is such thing as neutral, toward the REAL world, upbringing.
quote:And I most certainly do my best to teach my kid how to think for herself. I want her to have the proper tools to get through this life as I'm sure you do for your kids.
She'd better get the right tools as that's the only life she'll get.
quote:I just believe that it is also my duty to impart to her the most important tool that anyone can have in this life and that is a faith in the Great Maker. She can always reject it later if she decides to do that.
I thought the most important tool was a free and open mind aka the capacity to think by oneself.
quote:I find it so staggeringly obvious that faith in God does make a difference in this life that it floors me when you say it doesn't. Do you really believe that?
I DO. I just don't see anything faith brings that humanism doesn't bring.
quote:For instance, I've heard from people who work in hospitals some of whom are religious and some who aren't that they've seen patients with faith do far better than those who don't. You don't even need to believe God exists to acknowledge that the act of faith is a powerful thing in this life.
Sorry but studies have shown the total lack of effect of prayers and such on ill people.
Hmmm... might have two cents worthy of adding to the debate, so (personal stuff ahead, to sustain the point) :
I come from an italian family (highly catholic), but have been raised by lake Geneva (where Martin Luther - not Luther King - reformed christianism).
So while my family values profess catholicism, the local schools and technical education I received foster "rational thinking" - and in history
classes, we've seen the damage done by the roman catholic church to Europe.
Early on, the beliefs were reinforcing societies that needed to grow and strengthen their bonds, but during medieval times,
the inquisition, the pope, and so on did TERRIBLE damage to the progress of mankind.
Myself, I have always been a deep believer in nature and have also thought "creation" serves a purpose
and was "designed" - a purpose beyond my understanding.
I mean, as a kid, I would make TREES my imaginary friends and spend large amounts of time in the forest
talking to them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So where do I stand now? I reject DOGMA altogether. The bible is worthy of nothing to me aside a style exercise (the apocalypse particularly impresses
me in terms of mass manipulation - it is written the way a nightmare feels) and SOME elements of wisdom.
I reject God as a "label" - I don't want to name "that", I am only human.
But I strongly and deeply believe we all have a meaning beyond our physical existence, and do serve higher purposes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that "believing" does have power for it defines a great purpose - it is an addition to one's life, no matter WHAT you believe in - it's just
the "act" that helps seek for motivation when hopes are low.
I also know it can have quite the opposite effect :
last year, I was to marry a girl who had a high "physical" drive,
solid catholic beliefs, OPPOSED - and although she was grown up, this imbalance (and other factors) destroyed her self esteem
as our relationship progressed, I could see her going slightly mad and drifting - for she was in permanent conflict
with the "sinner in her acts" (she'd "have a revelation from God himself" at some point, a sign of someone deeply seeking a purpose for herself).
I was taking great care of her, but she started doubting herself so much...
That she started doubting every single move I made and every single thing on this planet - she became hell bent
on "I am gonna hurt her at some point".. and somehow, anticipated that.
..Ended up wrecking our relationship herself in a way I had never seen before, out of fear - she did have "îssues"
prior to meeting me, of course, but the fact of being physically close to someone was so contradictory of her belief system
it just did incredible damage - and she actually "got physical" spontaneously the day I accepted to WAIT - so it
truely was her desire.
Pardon me for comdemning a darn book that has killed thousands of europeans, among things,
and impacted my love life this way - pardon me for cursing her "pastor", that asshole who would
abuse his influence to make her suffer mentally.
So, believing is not bad, believing blindly can harm - severely.
I encourage different lines of thinking and I think that building up the self esteem of a kid,
in a case like the one debated here, would consist in telling
him/her what you truely think of God, but letting him/her try using her own capabilities -
eg. try to watch the movie and "integrate it"
using her own senses.
I think that is the way of respect - showing the kid you trust her to make a judgement for herself,
but that you strongly believe in God and that this is positive to you - I think that's the win win deal.
...And last but not least : for kids, some censorship makes sense in the case of strong violence,
sexually explicit content, etc.. Ok, that DOES make a lot of sense.
I truly believe there is such thing as neutral, toward the REAL world, upbringing.
I suppose we could both cite studies to support our views on this, but I doubt we have the time. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this.
quote: poi said:
She'd better get the right tools as that's the only life she'll get.
That's actually a statement of faith on your part. I respect your view, but sincerely think you're wrong and that there is more than just this life to consider.
quote: poi said:
I thought the most important tool was a free and open mind aka the capacity to think by oneself.
Ok, but I didn't say that. I agree that learning how to think clearly, logically and critically is dreadfully important. But faith is not inconsistent with that, in fact, they go hand in hand. Gideon has a wonderful quote in his sig relating to that.
quote: poi said:
Sorry but studies have shown the total lack of effect of prayers and such on ill people.
I wasn't referring to prayer but rather the role that faith plays in the individual patient and the strength it provides them.
I'm thinking of an experiment, for instance, that dropped rats in a bucket of water. They would measure how long they would survive before drowning. On one of the buckets they would never touch the rat and on another they would occasionally lower their hands to allow the rat to climb up out of the water briefly. The rat who was left alone drowned way sooner than the one who had the hope for lack of a better word of pulling through. That's the kind of dynamic I was referring to.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 01-09-2008 00:35
I can say, without a shadow of a doubt Bugs, that having no Faith in a god (or gods) in no way, shape, or form denigrates Life, the Quality of Life, or thereof. In fact, I find having no Faith at all in a god (religion) makes my life much more full and vital than before, than it did before as I was believing that I was "saved".
Remember, I used to be very religious, before turning away from the crutch and illusion that I discovered it to be.
Belief in the self, and taking full responsibility for ones life and condition is much more fulfilling to me. Awareness that my wellbeing is tied in with the wellbeing of others, and encouraging this. Acceptance of those things that I cannot change.
As for raising and nurturing children, of course some amount of "flavor" or "discoloring" will happen - that is human nature. The thing here is to refrain from actively attempting to do so, in the misplaced idea that somehow you "know better" when it comes to things that are based on pure Belief.
Like Religion.
This is why Religion is so hideous, for it propagates not only through Preaching to the Masses, but through the brainwashing of the children. It is a vehicle that allows the few to control not only the Masses, but also future generations, through the well-intended, but misguided hands of the Parents caught in the folds of Religion who are more than willing to brainwash their children.
There is a difference between teaching ones children, and brainwashing them. Teaching involves providing information and experiences in understandable form and communicating this. It does not suffocate free thought, rather it encourages it, needs it to succeed. Brainwashing is the opposite.
One needs to let their children take their steps towards growth, though it can be mighty painful to watch and experience! To suffocate this is the hold the child back, to stunt their growth. I am not saying here that one should let the child do anything it wants. I am saying that one provides the guide, the information, and instills the ability to think and evaluate into the child, and to be aware of action and consequence. Then the child needs to gather experiences at doing this, all the while not being subjected to too much risk while doing so.
What I find to be strange, is that so many Christians (and other religions, for that matter) try to follow being a good person, yadda yadda yadda as it says in their Holy Book - be a good neighbor, etc, but when it comes to their own children, they turn into the worst of Dictators and abusers of Power that can be imagined.
All is forgiven, all is easily excused in the name of "saving" the child's soul. The same evil that has led to so many attrocities at the hands of the Religious - it is Right in the name of God.
Shouldn't your personal belief be example enough?
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
I don't have the time to dive back into this thread right now (which seems to have exploded while I wasn't looking), but I want to address something Bugs said:
quote: Bugimus said:
Suho, my concern would be that children would be diverted from a saving faith in God.
When I made the statement that this quote refers to, I was replying to Gideon's concern that films which showed rebellion against authority would somehow have a negative effect on children--despite the fact that this theme has been with us for thousands of years.
I also think that, like you said, children are always going to have some form of parental guidance, one way or another, when they go to see films like this. I think maybe what Gideon was trying to say is that children who don't have Christian guidance might be (to use your words) diverted from a saving faith in God--but if they don't have Christian guidance they're not going to have that faith anyway.
But I'm talking in circles here. So much to say, so little actually said.
I will say one more thing, though: any claims about what happens to us when we die are ultimately claims of faith. You may have evidence to back those claims, but the truth is that we can't know for certain what will happen when we shuffle off this mortal coil. So, poi, while I admire your conviction, I don't think you can be one hundred percent certain that there is no afterlife. Just like I can't be one hundred percent certain that there is. I realize that you have a great disdain for "faith" and hate to see the word applied to your own worldview, but what else would you call something of which you can never have complete proof? Maybe a "belief," if "faith" grates too much on the ear?
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 01-09-2008 12:08
quote:I will say one more thing, though: any claims about what happens to us when we die are ultimately claims of faith. You may have evidence to back those claims, but the truth is that we can't know for certain what will happen when we shuffle off this mortal coil. So, poi, while I admire your conviction, I don't think you can be one hundred percent certain that there is no afterlife. Just like I can't be one hundred percent certain that there is. I realize that you have a great disdain for "faith" and hate to see the word applied to your own worldview, but what else would you call something of which you can never have complete proof? Maybe a "belief," if "faith" grates too much on the ear?
This is of course true. However, there is no evidence that one can bring forth to support that there is an Afterlife. And if there is an Afterlife, it is a one-way street, because no-one is coming back announcing it.
Well, except for a few of us who have died, and came back...
Of course, was that really an Afterlife, or just a delusion of a dying brain?
Still stumbling over that "100% certainty". What is "hard evidence" in this case? And to be honest, I do not want to try to repeat it in the name of science
quote:(Confidential to WS: in "real life" I'm actually a hideous beast of a person. )
I know that! Get back to the basement and up the voltage on those elektroshocks, maestro! The line of inmates waiting is getting longer...
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
I will say one more thing, though: any claims about what happens to us when we die are ultimately claims of faith. You may have evidence to back those claims, but the truth is that we can't know for certain what will happen when we shuffle off this mortal coil. So, poi, while I admire your conviction, I don't think you can be one hundred percent certain that there is no afterlife. Just like I can't be one hundred percent certain that there is. I realize that you have a great disdain for "faith" and hate to see the word applied to your own worldview, but what else would you call something of which you can never have complete proof? Maybe a "belief," if "faith" grates too much on the ear?
We've discussed this concept in a variety of contexts. It is popular to say that "belief" in evolution, for example, requires faith just like religion does.
It can be argued, semantically, that faith is present in both views. However, it's a lot like comparing a puddle to an ocean. Sure, they're both water...
The "faith" involved in concluding that, since their is no evidence (despite centuries of trying) that there is any sort of life after death, that there is not any life after death, is of a far different scale and variety than the faith involved in concluding that, if you live your life according to an ancient collection of stories (let's face it, regardless the value you place on those stories...it is an ancient collection of stories...), you will be sent to an eternal paradise filled with a variety of magical beings, streets paved with gold, hordes of virgins, or whatever your take on heaven may be
Surely you can see that ruling both ideas out as equally speculative is not quite accurate?
posted 12-04-2007 12:51
).
) 
