Author Who Wants To Kill God Makes Children's Movie

Forums: Spirituality And Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

From Snopes:

" The Golden Compass, a fantasy film starring Nicole Kidman that is scheduled to be released into theaters on 7 December 2007, has been drawing fire from concerned Christians. The film is based on Northern Lights (released in the U.S. as The Golden Compass), the first offering in Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy of children's books, a series that follows the adventures of a streetwise girl who travels
through multiple worlds populated by witches, armor-plated bears, and sinister ecclesiastical assassins to defeat the oppressive forces of a senile God.

Books of the trilogy have sold more than 15 million copies around the world, with Northern Lights winning the Carnegie Medal for Children's Literature in 2005 and in 2007 being awarded the 'Carnegie of Carnegies' for the best children's book of the past 70 years. The Amber Spyglass, the final book of the series, won The Whitbread Prize in 2001, making it the first children's book to do so.

The series' author, Phillip Pullman, is an avowed atheist who has averred that "I don't profess any religion; I don't think it's possible that there is a God; I have the greatest difficulty in understanding what is meant by the words 'spiritual' or 'spirituality.'" Critics of Pullman's books point to the strong anti-religion and anti-God themes they incorporate, and although literary works are subject to a variety of interpretations, Pullman left little doubt about his intentions when he said in a 2003 interview that "My books are about killing God." (Conservative British columnist Peter Hitchens labeled Pullman "The Most Dangerous Author in Britain" and described him as the writer "the atheists would have been praying for, if atheists prayed.")..."

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,559 • Replies: 43

No top replies

From SNOPES?

Hey, I got an idea.

If you don't want your child to see this movie, don't take him/her.

0 Replies

Chai wrote:

From SNOPES?

Hey, I got an idea.

If you don't want your child to see this movie, don't take him/her.

Another person trying to use logic to fight delusion. That's too reasonable for theists.

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

Chai wrote:
From SNOPES?

Hey, I got an idea.

If you don't want your child to see this movie, don't take him/her.

Another person trying to use logic to fight delusion. That's too reasonable for theists.

An atheist wants people to think about killing God...........

Yeah, that's logical......................

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Chai wrote:

From SNOPES?

Hey, I got an idea.

If you don't want your child to see this movie, don't take him/her.

Interesting idea. Kinda like if one doesn't want to be talked to about religion - then don't become involved in related conversations?

0 Replies

Firstly, this is very old news. Very old news.

Secondly, because Hollywood feared upsetting religious people, much of the religious references will be stripped out of the movie or at least diluted to avoid religious backlash. In fact, I do believe that direct references to religion and God would be removed... which kinda makes an adaptation of the third book nonsensical, when you think about it.

At least, that was the statement when I first heard about it and I haven't heard any retractments regarding this as of yet.

And trust a young Earth Creationist to misinterpret what someone said. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Firstly, this is very old news. Very old news.
Secondly, because Hollywood feared upsetting religious people, much of the religious references will be stripped out of the movie or at least diluted to avoid religious backlash. In fact, I do believe that direct references to religion and God would be removed... which kinda makes an adaptation of the third book nonsensical, when you think about it.

At least, that was the statement when I first heard about it and I haven't heard any retractments regarding this as of yet.

And trust a young Earth Creationist to misinterpret what someone said.

Interesting assumptions wolf.

First: Since the movie has not been shown yet - how can it be old news?
Second: Have you seen a 'sneak-preview' of the film - or are you speculating as to the actual content?

And are you suggesting that the writer from Snopes is a "misinterpreting young Earth Creationist"? How would you know this to be true?

0 Replies

try to keep up baddog.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

try to keep up baddog.

This ought to be good. Rolling Eyes

Keep up with what farmer?

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Chai wrote:
From SNOPES?

Hey, I got an idea.

If you don't want your child to see this movie, don't take him/her.

Interesting idea. Kinda like if one doesn't want to be talked to about religion - then don't become involved in related conversations?

Well, if I see someone here who doesn't want to talk about religion, I give them your message.

Isn't it the parents responsibility to decide whether or not to talk to their child about religion?

It sure isn't my decision, or yours.

This is about seeing a movie that each parent will have to decide for themselves whether or not to allow a small child view it.....They may decide against it because of religious beliefs....OR they may decide against it because of violence, profanity, sexual content, or any other reason that's important to them.

I scanned an article on Snopes, and found it interesting that they mention castration and female circumcision are brought up in the film too. I'm not an atheist, but if I had a child, I'd be more leary of taking them to this movie over that, than worrying about warping their minds over the existence or non-existence of God.

Instead, perhaps we should read the story of Bluebeard to our kids for light, pre-bedtime entertainment.

Or perhaps some more choice parts of the Bible, ones dealing with incest, rape and pillage.

0 Replies

How could an atheist want to kill God if an atheist doesn't believe there is a God.....

if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

0 Replies

Chai wrote:

...Isn't it the parents responsibility to decide whether or not to talk to their child about religion?

It sure isn't my decision, or yours.

This is about seeing a movie that each parent will have to decide for themselves whether or not to allow a small child view it.....They may decide against it because of religious beliefs....OR they may decide against it because of violence, profanity, sexual content, or any other reason that's important to them.

You're correct chai. :wink:

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

0 Replies

maybe on-topic, maybe not- dr. suess (cat in the hat, hop on pop, the lorax, for anyone left on the planet that hasn't heard of him) and shel silverstein (the giving tree, the missing piece, where the sidewalk ends) are both famous children's authors that were originally writers and cartoonists for playboy.

0 Replies

Wilso don't play!

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

real life wrote:
Wilso wrote:
Chai wrote:
From SNOPES?

Hey, I got an idea.

If you don't want your child to see this movie, don't take him/her.

Another person trying to use logic to fight delusion. That's too reasonable for theists.

An atheist wants people to think about killing God...........

Yeah, that's logical......................

A theist expects people to take a fantasy movie logically.

You're a bit mixed up, Wilso.

You, not I, are the one who suggested that the moviemaker was using logic to oppose theism. Laughing

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Wilso wrote:
real life wrote:
Wilso wrote:
Chai wrote:
From SNOPES?

Hey, I got an idea.

If you don't want your child to see this movie, don't take him/her.

Another person trying to use logic to fight delusion. That's too reasonable for theists.

An atheist wants people to think about killing God...........

Yeah, that's logical......................

A theist expects people to take a fantasy movie logically.

You're a bit mixed up, Wilso.

You, not I, are the one who suggested that the moviemaker was using logic to oppose theism.

I was talking about the theists who protested instead of just avoiding the movie you half wit!!!

0 Replies

Seems a long time since I read these books so my memory is a little hazy. The "god" of this universe is not the creator god that Christians and many other religions worship. I think Pullman described, in very general terms, that firstly there was never a creator. Secondly, there was matter and dust, the 2 major constituents of this world. This "god" was essentially the 1st sentient form to manifest from the dust (the 1st angel possibly). Being the 1st to form meant being the oldest, most powerful and most authoritarian. Many proceeding angels and other beings took this figure to be god as a given, some did not, hence a power struggle. This "god" is an imposter though, masquerading as something it isn't and using a position of responsibility to control the world. Religious or not, nobody likes an imposter, right?

So from this point of view, there are a wide variety of spins to place on the essence of the story. I remember also that, in a discussion between Pullman and the archbishop of Canterbury regarding the book, the archbishop noted in particular the way in which the church of this universe was purely about control (which he obviously felt was not the case in real life), "with no redemption" available. So Pullman is rallying against the concept of god which is used to oppress the masses and dictate their lives. This was my general understanding anyway.

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

real life wrote:
Wilso wrote:
real life wrote:
Wilso wrote:
Chai wrote:
From SNOPES?

Hey, I got an idea.

If you don't want your child to see this movie, don't take him/her.

Another person trying to use logic to fight delusion. That's too reasonable for theists.

An atheist wants people to think about killing God...........

Yeah, that's logical......................

A theist expects people to take a fantasy movie logically.

You're a bit mixed up, Wilso.

You, not I, are the one who suggested that the moviemaker was using logic to oppose theism.

I was talking about the theists who protested instead of just avoiding the movie you half wit!!!

Trouble with your chapped lips today. Wilso?

Or worse?

0 Replies

tinygiraffe wrote:

maybe on-topic, maybe not- dr. suess (cat in the hat, hop on pop, the lorax, for anyone left on the planet that hasn't heard of him) and shel silverstein (the giving tree, the missing piece, where the sidewalk ends) are both famous children's authors that were originally writers and cartoonists for playboy.

Go and play with the Gumplegutch, tiny
The Gumplegutch loves to play
You can bounce on his belly
And call him Old Nellie
And fill up his nostrils with clay
So, go and play with the Gumplegutch, my dear

I'll wait for you here. . .

0 Replies

Author Who Wants To Kill God Makes Children's Movie

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know