Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Do Your Part
Dear Beloved,
There is a movie coming out called The Gold Compass which plans to undermine the values of Christianity which is created by Philip Pullman a proud Atheist. The movie will be released on December 7th starring Nicole Kidman. It plans to teach kids Atheism and do away with God. For the background information please visit:
Snopes which details what the author is intending.
http://snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp
Wikipedia read controversey for more details
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Dark_Materials:_The_Golden_Compass
The Catholic League has campaigned to boycott this movie and not buy the trilogy of books. As Orthodox Christians it is also our responsibility to boycott it also. Spread the word and tell your friends, family, and most importantly people at your church. Alert them and explain to them the dangers of this movie and what it's true intentions are.
God be with you all.
There is a movie coming out called The Gold Compass which plans to undermine the values of Christianity which is created by Philip Pullman a proud Atheist. The movie will be released on December 7th starring Nicole Kidman. It plans to teach kids Atheism and do away with God. For the background information please visit:
Snopes which details what the author is intending.
http://snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp
Wikipedia read controversey for more details
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Dark_Materials:_The_Golden_Compass
The Catholic League has campaigned to boycott this movie and not buy the trilogy of books. As Orthodox Christians it is also our responsibility to boycott it also. Spread the word and tell your friends, family, and most importantly people at your church. Alert them and explain to them the dangers of this movie and what it's true intentions are.
God be with you all.
Comments
a film will always stay a film and what somones says, writes or do is none of our business....
most of the litle kids in egyptian families are not allowed to go to a cinema....and the others, for examples that are over maybe 15 have a brain to understand whats going on in a film and can difference between reality and fiction....so why always judge the other with " do not whatch the film its dangerous "... nad to boycott something or somebody, i mean are we civilizised people or are we rubish? do we have a brain, which by the way god gave us to use it, or do we not?
i cant understand people who wants to boycott or destroy something or somebody for nothing...again...ITS A MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
not a propaganda or anything else....wake up people follow ur heart which belongs to our lord!
i am sorry if i hurt someone but thats something i hate!
pp4m
ok....look my dear brother or sister....
a film will always stay a film and what somones says, writes or do is none of our business....
most of the litle kids in egyptian families are not allowed to go to a cinema....and the others, for examples that are over maybe 15 have a brain to understand whats going on in a film and can difference between reality and fiction....so why always judge the other with " do not whatch the film its dangerous "... nad to boycott something or somebody, i mean are we civilizised people or are we rubish? do we have a brain, which by the way god gave us to use it, or do we not?
i cant understand people who wants to boycott or destroy something or somebody for nothing...again...ITS A MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
not a propaganda or anything else....wake up people follow ur heart which belongs to our lord!
i am sorry if i hurt someone but thats something i hate!
pp4m
I understand your frustration but you're not getting what this movie's agenda is. It tries to subconsciously tell innocent children to get rid of God in their lives and to move on without him. Either way although it may seem innocent in it's surface the purpose of this film is to encourage children to become Atheistic. A long time ago a movie was set to come out depicting Jesus as a homosexual you think this is apropriate? It's a movie is it not? We don't want these things infiltrating the minds of young children, kids are innocent don't take this away from them. We have to teach the youth of our church to abstain from movies like this and to understand the dangers of movies such as these.
As our His Holiness Pope Shenouda would say, "A church without youth is a church without children."
God Bless
because no matter how many boycotts there will be a number of people in this world who would die to see that movie
in the Old Testament we see that God told his people to ignore the "false propehts and priests" not to go out and combat them for he will take care of them himself, and if these peoples went and followed their path then they would be following their own demise. Thus we should review our weaknesses and our strenghts, by this i mean we are weak when it comes to batteling this "ungodly thing of a movie" by worldly means but we are strong combattin it spirtually through prayer, whcih is as i see it, the only thing able to affect this movie
I kinda agree with Αριψαλιν
because no matter how many boycotts there will be a number of people in this world who would die to see that movie
in the Old Testament we see that God told his people to ignore the "false propehts and priests" not to go out and combat them for he will take care of them himself, and if these peoples went and followed their path then they would be following their own demise. Thus we should review our weaknesses and our strenghts, by this i mean we are weak when it comes to batteling this "ungodly thing of a movie" by worldly means but we are strong combattin it spirtually through prayer, whcih is as i see it, the only thing able to affect this movie
We are part of society to, but society is not a part of us. We need to get out there we can't just hide from everyone and have them say, "They can't talk to us because they are Christian," that's not true we as Christians and Egyptians should have a voice. I'm not telling people to not pray and not fast for the taking away of this movie but it must be addressed.
[quote author=ANDPOC link=topic=5872.msg78847#msg78847 date=1193529993]
I understand your frustration but you're not getting what this movie's agenda is. It tries to subconsciously tell innocent children to get rid of God in their lives and to move on without him.
And this is cause for concern why? If children aren't exposed to this in the movies, they are certainly exposed to it in schools and in work and in everyday life. What do you suggest? That we lock all our children in the house and not allow them to interact with the outside world due to the risk of them being exposed to atheism? Surely you are joking. Sheltering kids is not the solution. The solution is to teach your children the true faith, and pray that God waters and grows the seeds you have planted in them. That is all any parent can do.
[quote author=ANDPOC link=topic=5872.msg78847#msg78847 date=1193529993] A long time ago a movie was set to come out depicting Jesus as a homosexual you think this is apropriate? It's a movie is it not?
For the record, this was not true. It was just a stupid email being circulated around, but there was no truth to it.
i do belive advocacy is crucial and as a community awareness needs to be raised and as a community have a voice about concerning and important issues
one more thing; ppl often complain about certain tv shows right? yet they still watch it... wats going on there?? u complain yet u provide the ratings to keep it on air
Thus, just as we would not get our children to watch a movie with sexual references and violence, even if we know that they will be seen perhaps in the classroom, we would not expose them to these inflammatory and pernicious ideas, or at least give them any sense of merit. Also, by not going, schools might be reluctant to expose kids to such controversial and disapproving ideas, anticipating outrage.
Film involves all of our sense, and is where we are least critical of the information seeping through. It's impact is indelible, and hard to really palpate. Thus it is prudent if we minimise our own exposure to such evil ideas, or at least always be weary and analytical- because we should "Test everything, hold fast to what is good." Children are not within the capacity to test, and frankly those that are going to movies to be entertained (the majority of us!) are also not that much discerning.
What is more, is the guise of a children's film. We should not give license for those with an agenda to think that they can exercise their free speech at the detriment to the parents right to censure hate speech and other material deemed to destabilize the child.
If I may, I would like to play devil's advocate. I can understand what you are saying, however, the atheist can turn around and say the exact same thing. The 'Chronicle of Narnia' film(s) come to mind. The blatant display of Christian belief and doctrine in a children's movie would be quite objectionable for any right minded atheist. They could argue exactly what you have done (quite excellently I might add) and then what? We would have a banning by both sides of movies viewed to be overtly Christian or, conversely, overtly atheistic. There are two sides to every coin and, likewise, two sides to every argument. Blocking films because they have an 'agenda' will result in no production of films at all. One could use such films to our advantage though. It could be used as a tool to teach our children about how others think. That being said, since it is a children's movie, I doubt that the message will be deeply engraved in their psyches. I mean, most kids who watched Narnia were probably in awe of the fact that there was a talking lion. Unless a parent sits with their child and explains the symbolism, the only ones who will pick up on it are those old enough to have already been exposed to the opposing viewpoints.
The Atheist has no standard morality to delineate between right and wrong, except by an appeal to some common collective conscience- something I feel is quite illegitimate. Their belief in a godless evolution, makes our sole reason "our survival"- the "survival of the species". In this vein I fail to see how they can have a say on anything that does not hinder "survival". And I also do not understand by what moral code can they consistently make moral judgment calls? On what basis should they accept any film- for all films has some moral line?
Further, without these films children are already challenged enough. They have urges to rebell, to curiously free themselves of restraint and paradoxically to "fit in" and conform to the behaviours of their influential friends. There is already enough diversity in the playground that will give them a sense of the insignificance of religion, sense he is not yet old enough to appreciate the vast difference in morality a Christian has to other faiths. Already "God" is a word less uttered than the infamous four letter word, and perhaps even accompanies it. There is enough challenges.
I did not say ban it, but Christians should refrain from it. So what if Christian films won't be shown in schools either? Many Atheists enroll their children to Christian schools; obviously many do not have such a view that religious allusion is somehow inflammatory or pernicious?
Before I begin, I would just like to say, you have put forth a very good argument. I shall do my best to continue my role as devil's advocate and provide some counterpoints of my own.
[quote author=Doubting Thomas link=topic=5872.msg78929#msg78929 date=1193786133]
Unlike Atheists, our loyalty and our participation in the communion of an organized religion makes us susceptible. Children need to develop a stable trust in institutions, such as the Family Unit, the Education System, the Government and lastly, but more importantly, the Church. Adults are all too familiar about all the short commings of each institution, but while a child is developing its perceived stability is paramount to their own development. They develop positive attitudes, and not my very critical and apathetic outlook that many find an unattractive trait. It's not just unattractive, but it can suffocate the child, as his mistrust might paralyze any effort to excel in these systems and units. Even the hint of impropriety by the Church hierarchy has reduced my trust and participation in my local parish.
Are you somehow implying that our communion is a weakness that can be exploited? I would think otherwise. There is much strength to be found in a well established, firmly founded communion (as our Church certainly is). While there are certainly shortcomings, they are the result of human fallibility and no fault of the Church. To be honest, I'm not sure I see how this film will in anyway affect the perceived stability a child needs in Church. If you could expand on that, I would appreciate it. Now, while you say that the development of a positive attitude is needed, I would argue that the critical mind (which you seem to think may be unattractive) is vital as well. We must think and we must question. How else are we going to learn of the beauty and depth of God if we do not seek so that we may find, ask so that we may receive or knock so that it can be opened for us. While there is an inherent risk of being overly critical (as you say, it can lead to mistrust) a fine balance can be struck. I'm not sure about your particular case, and I'm sorry that it has deteriorated to the point of you having lost trust, but in my case, I have benefited greatly as a result of my being critical.
[quote author=Doubting Thomas link=topic=5872.msg78929#msg78929 date=1193786133]
The Atheist has no standard morality to delineate between right and wrong, except by an appeal to some common collective conscience- something I feel is quite illegitimate. Their belief in a godless evolution, makes our sole reason "our survival"- the "survival of the species". In this vein I fail to see how they can have a say on anything that does not hinder "survival". And I also do not understand by what moral code can they consistently make moral judgment calls? On what basis should they accept any film- for all films has some moral line?
Here I would like to refer you to what St. Paul writes in Romans: When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them (Romans 2:14, 15). All of mankind has been created in the image and likeness of God, be they Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian or Atheist. As such, they possess a God-breathed, immortal spirit within them which has the Law of God written upon it. So Atheist do in fact have a standard morality even though they refuse to acknowledge the Source of that Morality. Now, I know that the full potential of the spirit is not unleashed without being watered by the waters of Baptism and nourished by the oil of Chrismation, so it cannot fully bear the fruits of the Spirit. However, elements of those fruits can still be found in them, though it is not fully matured.
[quote author=Doubting Thomas link=topic=5872.msg78929#msg78929 date=1193786133]
Further, without these films children are already challenged enough. They have urges to rebell, to curiously free themselves of restraint and paradoxically to "fit in" and conform to the behaviours of their influential friends. There is already enough diversity in the playground that will give them a sense of the insignificance of religion, sense he is not yet old enough to appreciate the vast difference in morality a Christian has to other faiths. Already "God" is a word less uttered than the infamous four letter word, and perhaps even accompanies it. There is enough challenges.
Just because there are enough challenges already, do you honestly believe the Devil will stop? Just because we are on the brink of failure, or because we are about to fall, our Enemy will suddenly have compassion and back off? Certainly not. If anything, the attacks will be all the fiercer so that we not only fall, but are utterly crushed. But, do not think for one moment, that we cannot bear these attacks. Alone, we will certainly fail, but we are never alone. Christ is in our midst and He will help us. He has promised to. Thus, just because we may feel that our children are bombarded constantly by all that is anti-Christian, we must know that our God, a God of love, compassion, philanthropy, but also a God of power and glory, will be by our and our children's sides. We have an ally in our battle in this war, and 'He who is for us is greater than he who is against us'. Thus, for it to come down to a film, I think, is really a non-issue. So long as we provide spiritual nourishment for our children, as long as we pray for them, and trust God, God's grace is sufficient for us.
"11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love." (Eph. 4)
The simple fact remains; children do not know what to think. Their understanding is easily malleable. To allow premature challenges to our basic tenets of Christian living, such as "God", "faith" and "organized religion" is a disservice to our children who are naturally "tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of" teaching.
You might have a very optimistic view, that parents are equipped and ready to dissolve any evil thoughts that may arise in their children- but kids would not voice their new thoughts, because they are rather abstract, or they don't understand the gravity of such an idea. Children do not have an immature understanding of Church doctrine- they have almost no understanding. When they get taught them- it is the pastor/presbyter, Sunday School teacher and parent that is in the Offensive. It is harder to pluck out weed than to plant it. Thus, this movie is an avoidable point of hinderance.
My first point about our susceptibility comes from the problem that Children cannot readily appreciate that the Church is not only Ancient, but it has withstood among wolves. Such security is lost to them when suggested that an institution works with impropriety. This movie, I would imagine, would have things resembling our Church and portray it villainously. It is the child who will make the connection subconsciously, and as such has an indelible rebellious thought. It is not challenging the child's loyalty- it is preventing its development.
With regards to my earlier comment on Atheists standard on morality, I am aware that consciousness is inherent in all mankind, but an Atheist has already rebelled on a Higher Power, and thus to make a basis of right and wrong is increasingly difficult. Consciousness is malleable, impalpable, unreadable and thus while we can acknowledge that they have by Divine Grace some remnants of the "image of God", but they don't know that- and they have refused and denied the Guide that can help to decipher which is which. Further, their belief in a godless evolution would rule out an imprint of consciousness, spirit, or soul (basically anything immaterial) and impel them to believe all perceived moral ideas are part of social evolution, which severs any right of them to make moral statements since by their own ammunition it is all relative- just a part of an arbitrary, random process that has no principal right to autonomy. The Gentiles in St. Paul's day believed in higher powers, and thus their character development was in fear of these gods, which would have protected some crucial elements of their consciousness.
To the third point, you allude to the sufficiency of God's grace- making my task to obstinately refuse you rather difficult. But God does not only work by supernatural means, but through human participation too. It is the parents responsibility to provide the protective care of God, which is a part of God's grace. I still have to ponder an argument for this, though.
In regards to "baning films with an Agenda", I agree- that's silly. And banning films that have less than Christian agendas is also problematic. But children films should be relatively free from ideologies that challenges that of their parents without their awareness- surely?
[coptic]+ Iryny nem `hmot>[/coptic]
[quote author=ANDPOC link=topic=5872.msg78847#msg78847 date=1193529993]
I understand your frustration but you're not getting what this movie's agenda is. It tries to subconsciously tell innocent children to get rid of God in their lives and to move on without him.
And this is cause for concern why? If children aren't exposed to this in the movies, they are certainly exposed to it in schools and in work and in everyday life. What do you suggest? That we lock all our children in the house and not allow them to interact with the outside world due to the risk of them being exposed to atheism? Surely you are joking. Sheltering kids is not the solution. The solution is to teach your children the true faith, and pray that God waters and grows the seeds you have planted in them. That is all any parent can do.
I almost forgot to comment on this comment. ANDPOC was showing that these suggestions are "subconscious", whilst in schools it is usually more conscious and less elaborately put forward. The movie has an end that has been crafted by the producer/story creator or whoever- but with those who live Atheism around us, we can see the true effects of godless living "live"- and thus is less provocative, and more easily challenged. In the media, we have to have faith in the honesty of their delivery and story. And kids do not have the life-experience yet to know that anything in the media should be taken with a "pinch of salt". Dare I say it, many adults need this lesson too!
Eagerly waiting for your reply :P
Not sure if all this makes sense but weary of these things God is always with us but he does not control our destinies. To fool or poison an innocent child is a very bad sin.
First off, my humblest apologies for not having responded sooner. I had been a bit preoccupied with other things and didn't have a chance to get around to responding to you.
[quote author=Doubting Thomas link=topic=5872.msg78984#msg78984 date=1193890318]
I was starting to hate agreeing with you all the time :P With your Biblical references I felt I was the Devil's advocate- only alluding to childhood development philosophies etc. This time, not wanting you to have the upper hand, I am going to begin with a Biblical verse of my own :P
It's true, constant agreement does get rather dull, and I'm glad we are able to actually discuss our differences for a change. This has proven to be a most enjoyable exchange.
[quote author=Doubting Thomas link=topic=5872.msg78984#msg78984 date=1193890318]
"11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love." (Eph. 4)
The simple fact remains; children do not know what to think. Their understanding is easily malleable. To allow premature challenges to our basic tenets of Christian living, such as "God", "faith" and "organized religion" is a disservice to our children who are naturally "tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of" teaching.
Congratulations on returning the favour (i.e. using Bible verses of your own) :D. I must say, you have picked an interesting verse. I had always thought that when Paul spoke of us being children, it was meant in regards to us being spiritually immature, but you're literal take on it is interesting nonetheless. Everything you have said, I agree with. Children are certainly malleable and are very easily influenced by those around them. However, I still do not see how this movie will be an added burden when they are already surrounded by other outside influences that are beyond anyone's control. We cannot shelter our children from everything and inevitably they will face premature challenges to their faith. That is why, a somewhat solid foundation early on is vital for them. That being said though, I do not believe children are truly challenged until the teen years. Since this movie is for younger kids (although I'm sure adults and teens will enjoy it as well), I'm not sure the threat is as large.
[quote author=Doubting Thomas link=topic=5872.msg78984#msg78984 date=1193890318]
You might have a very optimistic view, that parents are equipped and ready to dissolve any evil thoughts that may arise in their children- but kids would not voice their new thoughts, because they are rather abstract, or they don't understand the gravity of such an idea. Children do not have an immature understanding of Church doctrine- they have almost no understanding. When they get taught them- it is the pastor/presbyter, Sunday School teacher and parent that is in the Offensive. It is harder to pluck out weed than to plant it. Thus, this movie is an avoidable point of hinderance.
The fact that they are abstract, to me, makes the thoughts all the less dangerous. A child will not be able to grasp the gravity of a particular line of reasoning, particularly one that involves a discussion on the absence of God. As such, I would suspect that it will be a case of 'in one ear and out the other'. I'm not so sure this is optimistic as it is realistic.
[quote author=Doubting Thomas link=topic=5872.msg78984#msg78984 date=1193890318]
My first point about our susceptibility comes from the problem that Children cannot readily appreciate that the Church is not only Ancient, but it has withstood among wolves. Such security is lost to them when suggested that an institution works with impropriety. This movie, I would imagine, would have things resembling our Church and portray it villainously. It is the child who will make the connection subconsciously, and as such has an indelible rebellious thought. It is not challenging the child's loyalty- it is preventing its development.
A friend of mine has read this book, and apparently, it is not as threating as some would make it out to be. While written by an atheist, my friend was saying that it really is a children's book and there are no blatant symbols in the story pointing to the evils of the Church or any such thing. Thus, I do not believe that the movie will result in an impediment of any sort of loyalty on the part of the child. Instead, what probably result in a greater impediment would be the behaviour of those in the Church which can often be less than Christian.
[quote author=Doubting Thomas link=topic=5872.msg78984#msg78984 date=1193890318]
With regards to my earlier comment on Atheists standard on morality, I am aware that consciousness is inherent in all mankind, but an Atheist has already rebelled on a Higher Power, and thus to make a basis of right and wrong is increasingly difficult. Consciousness is malleable, impalpable, unreadable and thus while we can acknowledge that they have by Divine Grace some remnants of the "image of God", but they don't know that- and they have refused and denied the Guide that can help to decipher which is which. Further, their belief in a godless evolution would rule out an imprint of consciousness, spirit, or soul (basically anything immaterial) and impel them to believe all perceived moral ideas are part of social evolution, which severs any right of them to make moral statements since by their own ammunition it is all relative- just a part of an arbitrary, random process that has no principal right to autonomy. The Gentiles in St. Paul's day believed in higher powers, and thus their character development was in fear of these gods, which would have protected some crucial elements of their consciousness.
Perhaps an analogy will help clarify my point. Let's say we have a person who wears dark shades and cannot see through them. This person denies the existence of the Sun entirely, simply because they cannot see it. Now, a person who is not wearing these dark glasses can clearly see the Sun, and can see the light coming from the Sun as well as feel the heat produced by it. The person with the dark shades cannot see the light, but feels the heat, even though this person denies the source of this heat. Regardless of his denial, the Sun exists and it produces light and heat. The person without the glasses benefits fully from the Sun by seeing the light and feeling the heat whereas the person with the glasses does not fully benefit because they do not see the light. It's the same sort of thing when it comes to the atheist with God. They can deny Him all they want, but it does not make it true, and they still partake, to an extant, with God although this partaking is not in its fullest sense. Can we deny the person with the glasses does in fact feel the heat even though he denies the source? Likewise, can we deny that an atheist can, in fact, make moral statements even though they deny the Source of Morality? The reason why I chose that verse from Paul is because, while on the surface he was speaking of peoples of other nations, to me, there is a deeper meaning behind it. Wouldn't you say that atheists are 'spiritual gentiles'? I hope that makes more sense.
[quote author=Doubting Thomas link=topic=5872.msg78987#msg78987 date=1193892211]
I almost forgot to comment on this comment. ANDPOC was showing that these suggestions are "subconscious", whilst in schools it is usually more conscious and less elaborately put forward. The movie has an end that has been crafted by the producer/story creator or whoever- but with those who live Atheism around us, we can see the true effects of godless living "live"- and thus is less provocative, and more easily challenged. In the media, we have to have faith in the honesty of their delivery and story. And kids do not have the life-experience yet to know that anything in the media should be taken with a "pinch of salt". Dare I say it, many adults need this lesson too!
If the movie has any sort of subliminal message, I can almost guarantee that it will be lost on children. Children go to movies to be entertained, not to be taught spiritual truths. Only those who are old enough to appreciate the inherent symbolism will come out of the movie with ideas that may challenge their faith. That being said, since we have yet to see how the plot unfolds, I don't think we can honestly comment on whether there will, in fact, be any subliminal messages at all. I mean, take the Matrix films for instance. How many people actually walked out of those films thinking about the parallels between the characters in the film and the Gospels for instance? I admit, I was one of them, but that's because I'm an odd fellow to start with. But for most people, it was a fantastic sci-fi film with a very interesting premise and a lot of really cool fight scenes (and that bullet time was awesome!).
[quote author=Doubting Thomas link=topic=5872.msg79199#msg79199 date=1194524750]
Dude, you won when you told me your friend read the book, and didn't see the anti-Christian message.
I didn't realize this was something to be 'won'. I was just in it for the free exchange of ideas that we were having. That being said, just because my friend has read the book and offered his opinion on it, does not mean this discussion is necessarily over. Granted, it would require that we both read the book (or watch the movie) in order to see if there is, in fact, a hidden message to the story.
[quote author=Doubting Thomas link=topic=5872.msg79199#msg79199 date=1194524750]
You have not shown how one cannot reason using the "truth" that we are a product of a godless evolution that has no autonomy over our existence and thus disregard consciousness, and thus severing any basis to make moral judgments.
Awww shucks... and I thought my analogy was pretty decent too. :D
The problem with your analogy is that it doesn't go long enough. For these ahelioests, like the Atheists, denying the source in which light/heat or morality can be derived from, and have no plausible alternative theory to justify another source. how can any judgments based on light/shading and right/wrong be held?
How can an Atheist argue with reason that Adultery or Murder is wrong. They will talk about adverse feelings and events; which is what your analogy heads to- and I agree they do benefit, even if they deny the source. But this is not a way to justify moral judgments, because some will not have these adverse feelings or events. Everything becomes relative.
The reason moral judgment can still be made (and thus heat can be felt) is because there is that natural law that Paul spoke of. Inherent in all of us is the ability to decipher between good and bad. This ability is not dependent on our beliefs. It is the result of us being God's creation. God placed this within all man. It is something that is inherent to our nature. If we go back to Genesis, our knowledge of Good and Evil stems from our ancestors eating from the Tree by the same name. Thus, all man is aware of, and can differentiate between good and evil, right and wrong.
In the case of the analogy, the person with the glasses cannot see the Sun (the light) but can feel the heat. Denial of the Sun does not make the feeling of heat any less real or genuine. The person does not have to come up with an explanation for the source of the heat, it is sufficient that they feel the heat. Even if a person were to come up with an explanation, the heat still remains the heat, and it still originates from the Sun. If this person finally decides to take off the glasses (in the case of the atheist, they finally shed their spiritual glasses) they will see the Source of the heat in the fullness of the light of that Source. Thus, not only will the natural law guide them (feel the heat), but the Grace of God will shower them with light.
[quote author=Doubting Thomas link=topic=5872.msg79208#msg79208 date=1194531933]
This is evidence for the contrary, that if one cannot accept the Source of morality, one would be led to question morality and hence have a distortion that has no right to any autonomy.
This is not entirely true. I, for one, am an example of a person who can accept the Source of morality, and yet I am still capable of questioning morality. The fact that there is disagreement on whether one should or should not watch this film is evidence of that. In this world, our perceptions of truth is relative. The only time truth becomes absolute is when it has been revealed to us. Certain things have been revealed to us as a result of a) Scripture but more importantly b) the Incarnation of the Word Himself. Divine revelation is the light of the Sun in my analogy. However, one can still be moral, that is feel the heat (though not completely, i.e. seeing the light) without Divine revelation (light) because the Divine image (heat) is still contained within our very nature. Not every truth has been revealed to us, only that which pertains to our salvation. As such, in this world, there is still a lot of grey. Not everything is black and white, nor will it ever be. Abortion is an example of a very grey area. The Church has wisely remained silent on the issue of abortion because there are cases when it is allowable. Virtually everything can (and should) be taken on a case by case basis. The same is true of capital punishment. I would even argue that euthanasia is a grey area. Homosexuality is different in that it has been 'revealed' to us. This is why we can say that same-sex marriage as well as polygamy is wrong. As Christians, we not only look at the physical consequence of an action, but the spiritual one as well. The atheist does not. Their only concern is with the physical because it is all they know. While being incomplete, it does not detract from their ability to be moral people. Think about it, some of the most immoral acts have been committed by those who subscribe to a system of beliefs. I need only refer you to the Inquisition and the Crusades to provide two examples in history of Christians engaging in grievously immoral acts. Thus, any person, be they deist or atheist, is capable of moral or immoral behaviour, and is thus able to comment on the 'right-ness' or 'wrong-ness' of something.
For instance what makes the Inquisition so wrong to the Atheist? Let's impose Survival of the Fittest- The victims were weak, so they naturally went awash. It is the natural order of things, as observed in all of nature. How can it be morally wrong? Perhaps they can do it, but what makes them the ruler which everything should be measured with?
You cannot impose the system of 'Survival of the Fittest' when dealing with Atheists, because atheists are not animals. They are not ruled by instinct. ALL man has been created in the image and likeness of God. Thus, all man carries the imprint of the Law in their heart. All men are moral beings. That is why an atheist can define something such as the Inquisition as being morally right or morally wrong. I'm not implying that their ruler is THE ruler that everything should be measured by. My sole argument is that atheists are capable of being moral, and expressing their views and arguments within a moral framework.
[coptic]+ Iryny nem `hmot>[/coptic]
You cannot impose the system of 'Survival of the Fittest' when dealing with Atheists, because atheists are not animals. They are not ruled by instinct. ALL man has been created in the image and likeness of God. Thus, all man carries the imprint of the Law in their heart. All men are moral beings. That is why an atheist can define something such as the Inquisition as being morally right or morally wrong. I'm not implying that their ruler is THE ruler that everything should be measured by. My sole argument is that atheists are capable of being moral, and expressing their views and arguments within a moral framework.
I am afraid you missed my point. The system of 'Survival of the Fittest' should by their beliefs be within the moral framework as a sequlae in denying God and the existence of the spirit. Without deity, the distinction between man and beast is purely academic and arbitrary. If this is the position that they hold, then it complicates any judgment they make about morality if the action in question occurs within the observed natural laws (of which I elicited Survival of the Fittest).
My argument is not that they cannot, but they are in a predicament because they cannot rationally make a judgment that is consistent with their whole belief-system. And my argument is that if such contradiction exists, then it precludes judgment.
If morality in your view is arbitrary, what weight does it have when you are trying to impose or impress your view on others?
It's just doesn't wash.
Okay. I see exactly what you're saying. I am clearly superimposing my faith in dealing with them, and you are not (and rightly so). You're absolutely correct in your assessment. Thank you for bearing with me on this. What you say does make a great deal of sense.