Of living lions and golden compasses
November 29th, 2007Kevin Shrum has an interesting take on the controversy surrounding “The Golden Compass.” He argues that the movie is simply entertainment and that Christians shouldn’t take it so seriously.
As entertainment, a movie ought to rank low on our list of world-shaping, idea-forming influences. This may sound naïve in a culture that is entertainment driven. Entertainment is non-reality, it is meant to be a form of escapism at best. For roughly two hours the viewer suspends his disbelief and lives in another world, fantasy or otherwise. But the movie ends, the lights come up and we return to the real.
Shrum adds that he will watch the movie and will probably enjoy it.
And what about the killing of God and the atheistic tendencies of the story and the movie? Well, that’s the real entertainment. People, governments, philosophers, artisans and even some theologians have been attempting to kill God and His church for centuries but to no avail. Why? Because after the viewer suspends her belief system for a moment of cinematic entertainment the lights come up and she must walk right back into the reality that God is not dead.
I think Shrum makes a good point.
I would also reference what my friend Chip has said over at his blog about this issue. He has similar thoughts, saying:
Are Christians really incapable of considering points of view that differ from their own? Is the faith of their children so fragile that seeing a movie or reading a book can destroy it?
And adds about the books heroine:
Lyra has many admirable qualities: personal courage, kindness, compassion, fierce loyalty to her friends, and a determination to do what’s right even at great personal cost. These are virtues every Christian can admire.
Sorry but I totally disagree with him. Would a children’s novel that suggests the possibility of killing God be an offense to my God? Absolutely. If it is an offense to God, why would I knowingly open my ears and eyes to it, even if it is in the name of entertainment? Isn’t this the very heresy that the Enemy succeeded in poisoning the world with? That we were (or could be) as capable as God?
I feel like there’s enough deception and “God-killing” in the world without supporting a film that is openly and unabashedly proclaiming it.
I see nothing wrong with assessing our faith in comparision to other world-views. I believe that if we are strong enough in doctrine, this experience can accentuate our faith. But this is just a silly idea, in my opinion. I mean where does it stop? Should we let our kids watch South Park episodes where Jesus is consistently made light of because it’s just “entertainment”?
No offense. It’s a good question to ask ourselves, Tim. I just think that the line of reasoning proposed in Mr. Shrum’s post is exactly how the Enemy would like us think.
From what I understand about this book series, Shrum whitewashes what it actually does.
“In the end, the ‘god-like’ figure of the story is killed.”
This “god-like” figure names himself Yahweh, El, and Adonai. Those names weren’t drawn out of a hat.
Regardless, it’s delusional to dismiss works of art as mere “entertainment” that one can enjoy for a few hours and then flush completely from one’s mind. Art can inspire, both for better and for worse.
It’s not that this movie can “kill God”, but that doesn’t mean it will have absolutely no effect on the faith or worldview of children who watch this movie. To say that Christianity can survive this movie is to react against a strawman.
And, ultimately, I doubt Shrum really believes this “it’s just entertainment” bit. If he does, he should be ignored.
To cite what Tim cited…
As entertainment, a movie ought to rank low on our list of world-shaping, idea-forming influences. This may sound naïve in a culture that is entertainment driven. Entertainment is non-reality, it is meant to be a form of escapism at best. For roughly two hours the viewer suspends his disbelief and lives in another world, fantasy or otherwise. But the movie ends, the lights come up and we return to the real.
One can make this very argument, word for word, in defending one’s choice to watch pornography. It’s not plausible then, and it’s not plausible now.
“Would a children’s novel that suggests the possibility of killing God be an offense to my God? Absolutely.”
Killing God is simply a criticism of Christianity. This is Nietzsche’s criticism that it seems Pullman has adopted in his books, if not his movie.
Basically, Christians refuse to look at a world without God and “The Golden Compass” shows them just such a world. That’s why there is so much opposition from Christians to this form of criticism. That’s why it offends many Christians.
…where Jesus is consistently made light of because it’s just “entertainment”?
Didn’t the Muslims voice this very same argument when they opposed the Danish cartoons of their prophet?
I would simply say this: from a social perspective, the world has seen enough of Christians getting bees in their bonnets and voicing their anger for this kind of stuff in pop culture. Has it really done any good? Is getting in a huff about this going to solve anything? Is this really any worse than Desperate Housewives (or whatever other show you’d like to mention) that communicates extreme self gratification, etc. (*note:this may not be a good example. I have never seen the show, but i think my point is made that there are worse things than the Golden Compass).
Why don’t we, as Christians, start being known by what we are for, rather than by our boycotts and by what we are against. With 20,000 children (or so) dying last night of hunger/disease/poverty, is this what we should be wasting our breath on?
Lastly, I have always been under the idea that we should expect pagans/non-Christians/heathens (whichever word is least offensive) to act like pagans/non-Christians/heathens. These film makers are free to make this movie and you and I are free to go see it or not see it, but let’s try to avoid telling others what they should do (not that anyone on here has, I’m just saying).
Hogwash. We look at a world without God everyday. That is why we know we need salvation.
Again, theories such as “Basically, Christians refuse to look at a world without God” come off as arrogant, and portray Christians as simple and unreflective. “That’s why there is so much opposition from Christians to this form of criticism. That’s why it offends many Christians.”
No and no. That is why you think it does, but it’s not.
As for Nietzsche, he went nuts trying to “re-evaluate the foundations of human values”. And while I’m more than sympathetic to mental illness, it’s certainly possible his own philosophies contributed to his demise.
Oh, and one other thing, isn’t it clear by now that pop culture boycotts don’t work? I would not have given a second thought to this movie, but now with all the hubub, I actually want to see it to see if there is a reason to make a fuss.
“Heathen” I haven’t heard that since Aunt Esther got in a fight with Fred Sanford on “Sanford and Son” back in the 70’s.
“We look at a world without God everyday. That is why we know we need salvation.”
If there is no God, there is no salvation. Like I said, Christians can’t imagine a world without God. Christians themselves admit this.
I’m with Luke strongly on this one. The “Dark Materials” Trilogy advances the agenda of the anti-Christ. It is very significant that Scholastic is pushing this crap throughout the country at our tax-supported public schools.
Entertainment? I view and allow my children to view a lot of things others would find objectionable, but a satanic, ungodly worldview? No, Nick I will not do that. My kids might hear some choice words, see the use of alcohol, and witness the just use of graphic violence against evil, but you have to draw the line somewhere. I guess drawing that line offends you?
Boycott? A call to discernment and evangelical engagement of the culture is not a stupid boycott. Some of you guys are to too moralistic on some issues and seriously lack discernment on others.
Cineaste, the often civil and well-reasoned response to Hitchens’ books (for instance), belies the charge that we Christians just can’t reckon with an atheistic worldview. We can, we just don’t always think that we should let that worldview be shoved down our children’s throats just so we can argue that we’re open-minded, when those (like you) who think we aren’t will never be satisfied until we surrender every principle that we have.
The comparison between Christian criticism of Pullman’s books and the Muslim reaction to the Mohammed cartoons is hardly apt either, because their reaction was wrong, not because it was critical, but because it was violent.
Personally, my criticism is less with Pullman himself, and more with those Christian writers (like Shrum) who do not seem to have thought through this issue. It’s one thing to disagree on whether Pullman’s book is appropriate for children, another thing altogether to be so glib about the effect of art on the individual.
But you don’t seem concerned with the substance of our criticisms. You just want to take this opportunity (and apparently any and every opportunity you can) to attack Christians and our faith.
“You just want to take this opportunity (and apparently any and every opportunity you can) to attack Christians and our faith.”
And as with my words, you view the “Golden Compass” as an attack rather than a criticism as well. I don’t think Christians take criticism very well, especially if it comes from atheists.
“…but a satanic, ungodly worldview?”
If a world view is Godless, then odds are it’s also “Satanless.”
The comparison between Christian criticism of Pullman’s books and the Muslim reaction to the Mohammed cartoons is hardly apt either …because it was violent.
The Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoons was certainly violent, but their argument is identical to, “…where Jesus is consistently made light of because it’s just “entertainment”” Instead of Jesus, it’s Muhammad, but it’s the same rationale.
“We can, we just don’t always think that we should let that world view be shoved down our children’s throats…”
That’s rich. It’s the opposite you know. Christians are constantly shoving their world view down others throats. Think of it this way, no atheists ever boycotted the Narnia movies or refused to take their children to see them because it promotes Christianity. Now, when the shoe is on the other foot and a movie supposedly promotes atheism, Christians throw a fit.
Hey Cineaste, I don’t care what movies they make. But alerting unsuspecting Christians to the compass’ anti-Christ worldview certainly isn’t throwing a “fit.”
The concern is to forwarn Christian viewers, not silence free speech.
The Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoons was certainly violent, but their argument is identical to, “…where Jesus is consistently made light of because it’s just “entertainment”” Instead of Jesus, it’s Muhammad, but it’s the same rationale.
And? Does free speech mean that a skeptic can commit blasphemy but a religious adherent can’t criticize that blasphemy?
I don’t understand your criticism here, which makes me think that it’s not a substantive criticism but is, instead, an empty attack.
That’s rich. It’s the opposite you know. Christians are constantly shoving their world view down others throats. Think of it this way, no atheists ever boycotted the Narnia movies or refused to take their children to see them because it promotes Christianity. Now, when the shoe is on the other foot and a movie supposedly promotes atheism, Christians throw a fit.
No one’s throwing a fit, but I would love to see even the thinnest evidence that “no atheists” refused to take their children to see the Narnia movies because of their Christian worldview. I can point to a couple prominent atheists who absolutely loathe Narnia: not just Pullman, but a UK Guardian writer named Polly Toynbee (Google her, you’ll see). But you insist that it’s simply not the case that not a single atheist parent refused on principle to let his or her small child read the books or see the movie?
I hope you can back up that ridiculous claim with something more than the obvious desire for it to be true.
“I don’t understand your criticism here…”
…where Jesus is consistently made light of because it’s just “entertainment”?
Didn’t the Muslims voice this very same argument when they opposed the Danish cartoons of their prophet?
Bubba, the answer is yes.
…I can point to a couple prominent atheists who absolutely loathe Narnia
Well, have at it then and point away. Atheists didn’t react to the Narnia movies the way you guys are with The Golden Compass. Take Kevin Shrum’s advice and lighten up.
Boycott? A call to discernment and evangelical engagement of the culture is not a stupid boycott. Some of you guys are to too moralistic on some issues and seriously lack discernment on others.
Klay,
First of all, I never called it a “stupid” boycott.
Second, i am only referring to the boycott because that is what the email circulating calls for, saying:
I suggest that you boycott the movie and the books
Third, as far as your accusation of seriously lacking discernment…let me say that I am not FOR the movie. i think it is rather sad that a culture wants to make a cute story about killing God. I did say, though, that Christians responding the way that they are is not helping the situation. what a great opportunity for Christian parents to have meaning conversation with their children about this movie.
In addition, Klay, have you read the books? I admit that I have not, and so I have been careful not to make a judgement about the message or content. I think to take such a strong stand out of ingorance would be unwise. (*note: I did a similar thing with the Desperate Housewives example, but I admitted that as I was referring to it)
I’d also be interested to hear what issues I/we are too moralistic on.
“And as with my words, you view the “Golden Compass” as an attack rather than a criticism as well. I don’t think Christians take criticism very well, especially if it comes from atheists.”
Cineaste, I can’t speak for you and your words but it is my understanding that Pullman readily admits and intended the movie to be an attack on Christianity. The director even had to work to tone down the hostility to make it more palatable to a broader audience.
Pullman also seems to be obsessed with his own misguided criticism of the Chronicles of Narnia. I find it strangely inconsistent and hypocritical that he would accuse Lewis of “misogyny” and “racism” while he is reveals his blantant bigotry for Christianity. Boycott? No. Pullman’s work will be forgotten while Lewis’ and Tolkien’s will live on…
what a great opportunity for Christian parents to have meaning conversation with their children about this movie.
My children and I had a meaningful conversation about this movie already. They asked if we were going to see it, I said we weren’t, explained why and that was the end of the conversation.
I loved the Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia when I was a kid. I still have fond memories of them. I just find it sad that certain Christian parents are possibly robbing their kids of a similar experience with the Golden Compass books because they don’t agree with the religious beliefs of the author. Judging from Kevin Shrum’s review, it’s a really good read. If my parents had acted like you guys when I was a kid regarding C.S. Lewis’ Christian views, I would have never gotten the chance to visit Narnia and I’d be poorer for that. I think such a mentality is narrow minded and it’s your kid who pays the price by missing out on what are some good books. I can’t say if the movie is good or bad because it’s not out yet, but if it is good, then they are missing out on that experience as well.
I love what Jeffrey Overstreet writes about movies and christiantity. He does reviews for Christianity Today.
http://lookingcloser.wordpress.com/
My, my. Such a lot of kerfluffle over nothing. I have read all three books in His Dark Materials: The Golden Compass, The Subtle Knife, and The Amber Spyglass. There is no doubt in my mind that Pullman’s work is every bit as richly imaginative and wonderful as the work of Tolkein and Lewis. The books are good. Yes, Pullman is an atheist on a mission, but his books transcend it. Yes, they can be disturbing to Christians. But when I reflected how unlike are his god and the God I know, I was able to read on with enjoyment because the god he kills deserves to die. (In fact, any god that suffers itself to be killed deserves to die).
His criticisms of Christianity reminded me of those in Thomas Hardy’s works, and I felt the same way about them: I felt he had not understood the gospel. The very things that Pullman so obviously admires—courage, loyalty, friendship, love—are virtues with a long history in Christian thought and tradition. I highly recommend Pullman’s books. They are well-written and very excellent. I also recommend that Christian parents encourage their children to read them and discuss Pullman’s implied critique of Christianity with their kids. Yes, there is some risk in doing so. But forbidding them to read the books merely postpones the risk until they are of age, and they will not be any stronger for having grown up in a hothouse carefully sheltered from ideas that might harm them.
A few thoughts:
We can certainly analyze and understand an atheistic worldview, but I would posit that a world without God is philosophically impossible. Some philosophers describe God as a “necessary being.” But…. at the popular level….
I’m not bothered or offended that the Golden Compass was filmed and released, for many of the reasons mentioned above. Much of this depends on the age of your kids…. one’s response might be different with eight year olds than fourteen year olds. My kids aren’t old enough yet for this to even be a real issue in our family, but I’m fairly certain we wouldn’t go see it. But its not because I’m scared that the atheist boogeyman is going to jump into their minds and rob them of their faith. If a movie can undo my child’s worldview, then I’m not doing a good job as a father. But that doesn’t mean I should just let them do/see/”experience” whatever they want in our culture.
One last note in response to a comment above:
“(In fact, any god that suffers itself to be killed deserves to die).”
Do you want to rethink that statement in light of the Gospel?
Oh, and I too am weary of Christians running around protesting like any other “victim” in our culture, getting fired up about perceived slights and whatnot. I seem to recall Jesus promising that the Gospel (and those who love it) would be reviled, misunderstood, even persecuted….
“Do you want to rethink that statement in light of the Gospel?”
Maybe I was a bit rash there. Of course I was not thinking of the gospel. I was thinking of Nietzsche. I could also argue that God did not die, but that would land me in really deep water where we would be discussing the deity of Jesus and the nature of the trinity. Too far off topic…. So with your indulgence I’ll modify my statement: Any god that suffers itself to be permanently killed deserves to die.
Atheists didn’t react to the Narnia movies the way you guys are with The Golden Compass. Take Kevin Shrum’s advice and lighten up.
But they sure do over-react when a creation museum opens up; a museum that contains nothing more than fictional accounts of history to them.
j razz
Chip wrote:
But when I reflected how unlike are his god and the God I know, I was able to read on with enjoyment… His criticisms of Christianity reminded me of those in Thomas Hardy’s works, and I felt the same way about them: I felt he had not understood the gospel.
I can certainly understand drawing this conclusion, and I feel the same way when I meet people who, for whatever reason, don’t grasp the good news of the message of Christianity. But, the reality is, the series’ exposure is most certainly not limited to mature adults who truly understand the teachings of Christianity.
In his unfair attacks on religion in general and Christianity, Pullman displays nothing less than religious bigotry. His books are probably more artistic than other works of such bigotry, and certainly less vicerally offensive, but let’s make the comparison explicit.
Suppose we were talking about a children’s version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and repeats the blood libel that Jews use Gentile blood in their religious ceremonies.
Now, as someone who admires Judaism and God’s chosen people, I can feel a certain sense of pity for the poor soul who actually believes such slander, just as Chip and I feel a certain degree of pity for Pullman.
And while it may be wrong for a parent to try to prevent his child from being made aware that anti-Semitism exists, it still doesn’t follow that a good parent would let the Protocols reside on the child’s bookshelf alongside the books about Narnia and Oz, Middle-Earth and the Hundred-Acre Wood.
Take the arguments we’re hearing for letting kids read Pullman and apply it to a children’s version of the Protocols.
If it taught virtues like courage and self-sacrifice, that would hardly commend the book if these virtues were taught as being necessary to oppose evil, murderous Jews. And whether or not it’s very well written doesn’t enter into the equation: bigoted propaganda isn’t rendered less poisonous by being well made.
Of course, some here are going to cry foul that I’m comparing Pullman to the Protocols, but they should explain why specifically the comparison isn’t apt. I believe there is no substantive reason not to make the comparison, that any possible excuse is superficial behind the basic reality behind both works: both are slanderous propaganda designed to attack an entire people, Christians on the one hand and Jews on the other.
To respond briefly to Cineaste, I still don’t see the substance of the criticism that the Christian criticism of Pullman’s work is similar to the Muslim criticism of the Mohammed cartoons.
You keep making this comparison but refuse to explain why the comparison matters. Muslims give to the poor — alms are one of Islam’s central tenets — so does that mean it’s wrong, too? Without substance behind this comparison, the comparison seems like a weak attempt of guilt by association.
“…I can point to a couple prominent atheists who absolutely loathe Narnia”
Well, have at it then and point away. Atheists didn’t react to the Narnia movies the way you guys are with The Golden Compass. Take Kevin Shrum’s advice and lighten up.
I pointed two such people out, in the same sentence you quoted. Reading that phrase in context would have made that clear: I cited a UK Guardian writer named Polly Toynbee, and her bile is available here.
She hates Narnia (”the perfect Republican, muscular Christianity for America - that warped, distorted neo-fascist strain that thinks might is proof of right”), partially because she hates Christianity:
“Of all the elements of Christianity, the most repugnant is the notion of the Christ who took our sins upon himself and sacrificed his body in agony to save our souls. Did we ask him to? Poor child Edmund, to blame for everything, must bear the full weight of a guilt only Christians know how to inflict, with a twisted knife to the heart.”
The idea that there are no atheists who loathe Narnia viscerally is a lie, and the call to “lighten up” regarding the chasm between atheism and Christianity is funny, coming from you.
LOL Cine–”Heathen” I haven’t heard that since Aunt Esther got in a fight with Fred Sanford on “Sanford and Son” back in the 70’s.
“But they sure do over-react when a creation museum opens up; a museum that contains nothing more than fictional accounts of history to them.”
Boomshockalocka!
Wow! There were only 2 posts when I checked back yesterday! What a stimulating topic, Tim!
I’d like to respond to a couple of things that have been said:
(cine) “Basically, Christians refuse to look at a world without God and “The Golden Compass” shows them just such a world.”
-You are mistaken in what you say. As Zoner said “we look at a world without God everyday.” It is evermore evident that this world is turning it’s back on our Creator. But I do refuse to actively pretend that I live in a world without God, because I don’t.
(nick) “Oh, and one other thing, isn’t it clear by now that pop culture boycotts don’t work?”
-I’m not advocating a boycott. I couldn’t care less how much money this film makes in the theatres. I am advocating a discerning, careful approach to these films. IMO, it is specifically situations like these that we need to be the most careful and stringent. In Scripture and in life, some of the most dangerous and subversive situations are clothed in niceties and normality. As Klay said “Boycott? A call to discernment and evangelical engagement of the culture is not a stupid boycott.”
(cine)”The Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoons was certainly violent, but their argument is identical to, “…where Jesus is consistently made light of because it’s just “entertainment”” Instead of Jesus, it’s Muhammad, but it’s the same rationale.”
-You are correct. It’s not the reaction itself that was wrong in the Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoon. It was the violent response. Muslims have every right to be offended by the Danish cartoon, the telling part is how they responded to it. Are you telling me that I have no right to be offended if my beliefs are made light of, cineaste? Like Bubba, I fail to see what your comments are trying to accomplish.
(chip)”Yes, Pullman is an atheist on a mission, but his books transcend it.”
-I’m confused how an atheist’s mission/work can be transcendental. If this was indeed the case, wouldn’t he disavow it on the grounds of his militant athieism?
Look, I’m not trying to propose that we should all boycott these books/films or that this is a call-to-arms. I am of the opinion that the less of a fuss Christians make about these films, the less anti-Christian groups will be able to use these films as a rallying point. All I am disagreeing with is Dr. Shrum’s casual dismissal of these stories as merely “entertainment”. This is a dangerous miscategorization, in my opinion.
“You keep making this comparison but refuse to explain why the comparison matters.”
It’s not my job to do your thinking for you. I’ll try to help you though. We’ve established that both Muslims and Christians get offended when their religion is “made light of.” Here is how atheists reacted to the Danish cartoon making light of their non-god. If you get offended “…where Jesus (or Muhammad) is consistently made light of because it’s just “entertainment”” then you are taking yourself far too seriously.
…She hates Narnia
So what? This atheist happens to love Narnia as most atheists do. Lighten up.
“But I do refuse to actively pretend that I live in a world without God, because I don’t.”
Exactly. You can’t imagine a world without God. It’s a place most Christians just can’t go. So, they can’t understand those who do.
“But they sure do over-react when a creation museum opens up; a museum that contains nothing more than fictional accounts of history to them.”
As an atheist I could care less. As someone who likes facts, I and other evolutionists view the creation “museum” as a mechanism to spoon feed children misinformation at best, lies at worst. Not all evolutionists are atheists. If you didn’t know this before, you do now.
I should add, most evolutionists are theists.
Christians are concerned because truth is important. Deception is real. Atheism - no matter how it’s repackaged - is still a lie. It denies reality. It denies the testimonies of countless people. For example, a while back when the discussion was when personhood begins, my premature birth and personhood is a testimony to the truth. That fact was ignored. Why? We’re talking about real tangible things here, yet it’s as if it is only a theory, subject to debate. (Cineaste could reply and say that we’re ignoring his testimony. What is his testimony? He says God doesn’t exist - yet before us we see Mark(Cineaste); a uniquely talented creation, made by a loving God who has an awesome plan for his life. Mark’s worth argues against anything else.)
Life isn’t theory. Death isn’t either. Until atheism (or any other man-made thing for that matter) has an answer for it, its arguments ring hollow to those at death’s door. Jesus heals, transforms, and saves those that take Him at His word. The countless testimonies of people around us each day are reality - not theory.
The choice is ours. Satan has a plan for our lives - just as God has a plan for our lives. Who do we want to be used by?
That’s ok Mark. Facts are facts. God still loves you. What you choose to do with that love is your choice.
That’s correct, facts are facts. Your God is not a fact. Your God is a belief, a faith a religion. You are conflating what you believe with what you know.
Mark, seriously, if you want to talk about spiritual things sometime, feel free to email me anytime.
Have a good weekend….
Cineaste, you have a belief that the supernatural is imaginary. Not a fact, a belief. I know you love to compare belief in God with belief in FSM, unicorns, and leprechauns. We have clearly made the supernatural definition distinction to you in the past (i.e. belief in a deity does not equal belief in imaginary beings). But you continue to falsely equivocate the two beliefs because you simply cannot imagine a world with God in it. Until you can open your mind to that possibility and stop equivocating to leprechauns and FSMs you will always reach an impasse with those in this blog.
Just FYI, Richard is referring to a comment that I deleted because I deemed to be inflammatory, and not contributing to the conversation.
Ya Roger, I’ll do that. If you’d like to talk about science and philosophy sometime, feel free to email me.
“Cineaste, you have a belief that the supernatural is imaginary. Not a fact, a belief.”
You also have a belief that the supernatural is imaginary. Not a fact. You do not believe in supernatural fairies. You do not believe in the supernatural God, Allah. You do not believe in the supernatural God, Zeus. I simply apply that same logic to your God.
You’re basically arguing that you don’t believe in anything supernatural except that which pertains to your own God. Although He is also supernatural, somehow He is different from the other supernatural beings you don’t believe in like fairies.
Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:
1. Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
2. Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
3. Therefore A is exempt from S.
“…you simply cannot imagine a world with God in it.”
This is actually my argument which you have usurped. Actually I can imagine a world with a All loving, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God. It would be paradise. I can’t imagine such a loving God would allow a world of death and disease and pain and suffering. If such a loving God existed, He wouldn’t allow so much misery. But, misery and suffering is exactly what’s expected in an indifferent natural universe. We don’t live in a paradise. We DO have misery and suffering.
Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt…
Kind of like what you did with the creation museum comment?
j razz
“Kind of like what you did with the creation museum comment?”
No.
“most evolutionists are theists.” Most of the people of the world are theists. And in this country, just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved.
“As someone who likes facts, I and other evolutionists…”
You mean like: Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.
Or
Dirt + water + time = living creatures?
No, maybe God created the first micro-organism.
So you’re saying then that your position is soft?
No, are you? I am saying that it’s probably time to say goodbye to this thread.
It’s reached the point of having no point.
So, how did an article about The Golden Compass spawn remarks about creationism vs. evolution? Looking back, it appears the remarks evolved incrementally in that direction….
Cineaste:
You’re basically arguing that you don’t believe in anything supernatural except that which pertains to your own God. Although He is also supernatural, somehow He is different from the other supernatural beings you don’t believe in like fairies.
Most Christians believe in more than just one supernatural being: namely, angels, devils, and even ourselves, since the soul is supernatural. It is only that God is supreme and self-existing.
But the argument that Christians engage in special pleading presumes that the evidence for Christianity (e.g., the historical claim of the Resurrection) is as weak as all other religions.
This is a serious instance of question-begging.
–
You bring up what is, essentially, the problem of pain.
Actually I can imagine a world with a All loving, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God. It would be paradise. I can’t imagine such a loving God would allow a world of death and disease and pain and suffering. If such a loving God existed, He wouldn’t allow so much misery. But, misery and suffering is exactly what’s expected in an indifferent natural universe. We don’t live in a paradise. We DO have misery and suffering.
This problem has been grappled with by Christians for literally thousands of years, and long before anaesthesia. It would be one thing if you dismissed the Christian solution to this problem, but it’s weak to act as if we offer no solution.
In part, the solution involves humility. We are not omniscient, so we cannot possibly know for certain that the suffering we experience outweighs the good that is possible in a universe in which suffering can and does exist.
And, most emphatically, the Christian answer to suffering is Christ Himself.
Man experiences anguish, grief, suffering, pain, and death? God became a man and experienced the very same thing.
God will not reveal to us in this life the meaning behind all our suffering, but He does something far better: He has demonstrated that He is with us in our suffering. We are not forsaken.
“But the argument that Christians engage in special pleading presumes that the evidence for Christianity (e.g., the historical claim of the Resurrection) is as weak as all other religions.”
Bingo. Only Christians think that there is evidence for their God. Only Muslims think there is evidence for Allah. Everyone else… not so much. Both of them point to the “eyewitness” accounts in their holy books. The Qu’ran and the Bible are not evidence for themselves. Check this out Bubba, it’s one of the best debates on religion I’ve seen because it makes the point that debating Christianity with a Christian or debating Islam with a Muslim is a waste.
The second part of you post boils down to, “God works in mysterious ways, who are we to question God?” So, Christians are satisfied with this as if it neatly explains suffering and misery. I’m not.
“Looking back, it appears the remarks evolved incrementally in that direction…”
Ha! Yup, incrementally not randomly. Clever!
Interesting comments ladies and gents. But most of you have missed the left-handed slap I am making against the movie in particular and the entertaiment industry in general. I take Pullman’s ideas very seriously. However, we live in a media-driven culture that has an air of self-importance that is out of proportion with the actual substance of life. To say that The Golden Compass is ‘just a movie’ is the greatest slight you could ever make against the movie itself.
In fact, while I see movies occasionally, if you think I am suggesting an open to any kind of movie attitude you, again, have missed the point. If anything, I am arguing that movies and entertainment are make-believe. The real make-believe of The Golden Compass is to suggest that God is dead. Yet, because we live in a 24/7, 500 channel HD world where movie actors are elevated God-like stature we are tempted to buy into the false notion that a thing is true because of the pervasive nature of the medium. A lie is a lie no matter the medium.
Keep up the good thinking
Oh, one more thought. The reason The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe will tower over Pullman’s Dark Materials as time passes is not because of the medium (both are in book or movie form) but because the Lewis’ is rooted in truth while Pullman’s is rooted in a lie, if it is his attempt a atheistic fantasy. Remember, time and truth are exceptionally good companions.
I know nothing about The Golden Compass except Nicole Kidman looks pretty good in the previews; nevertheless, I really don’t have any desire to see the film.
As for the debate over the movie: It’s FICTION. Love/agree with or hate/disagree with the movie’s message(s), it’s a fictional piece of work.
I can understand parents being concerned about the anti-Christian theme of any film, but to react so strongly against The Golden Compass and to refuse to let children see the movie will undoubtedly make some kids more determined to see it. Why not allow the kids who wish to see it to do so — preceded and followed by lots of conversation?
(If I were the filmmaker, I’d be foaming at the mouth — in a good way! — over the word “boycott.”)
…but because the Lewis’ is rooted in truth while Pullman’s is rooted in a lie…
Kevin, you forgot to qualify this. It should read, “but because Lewis’ work is rooted in truth [As Christians see it] while Pullman’s is rooted in a lie [As Christians see it]…” Remember, your just expressing your opinion, not anything factual, just like an actor.
Cineaste, you forgot to qualify this. It should read, “but because Lewis’ work is rooted in truth [(and in my opinion you should have said), as Christians see it]while Pullman’s is rooted in a lie [(and in my opinion you should have said), as Christians see it]…” Remember [Cineaste], your just expressing your opinion, not anything factual, just like an actor.
j razz
Kevin, you forgot to qualify this. It should read, “but because Lewis’ work is rooted in truth [As Christians see it] while Pullman’s is rooted in a lie [As Christians see it]…” Remember, your just expressing your opinion, not anything factual, just like an actor.
Oh, please. Like you always qualify everything you say about Christianity. Hello kettle, this is pot. You’re black.
Narnia towering over His Dark Materials?!?!? Somehow, I don’t think so. From a literary standpoint, His Dark Materials blows Narnia out of the water. Pullman has crafted a brilliant trilogy that actually surpasses Lewis.
Now, lest people start protesting too much, keep in mind Pullman’s critique of Narnia does have a certain validity: it is far too innocent and “happy-clappy” in many ways. His Dark Materials is extremely earthy and “realistic” by comparison. Given the completely different contexts the authors set their novels in, it’s stupid to compare the two in literary quality, much less in stature.
If you really want to go that route, you must no doubt concede that Tolkien “towers” over absolutely everything.
Nick, I’ve been away from the blog for several days and just now saw your reply post on this thread. Please forgive me, after re-reading my comments I can see where you felt like I was singling you out. This was not my intent and I am sorry.
Btw, if the boycott thing was being circulated by Wildmon and the AFA, I say boycott him because he isn’t even orthodox on the Trinity!!!!!!!!!!!! No kidding, he embraces heretical doctrine last I checked.
Sorry, I can not find the material on Wildmon and a heterodox understanding of the Trinity on the Internet. I am certain that I was able to find such material in the late 90’s, but with nothing to support these concerns at present:
PLEASE DISREGARD MY COMMENTS ABOUT WILDMON
I do not wish to be guilty of breaking the Ninth Commandment concerning another.
No problem, Klay.
I would still be interested in hearing what issues you think some of us on here are too moralistic on…if you care to share.