MemphisTigerPawr Wrote:Man put the "WORD" on paper, but if you read it, you will find concerning these men, they were divinely appointed by God to write down His WORD. It will say something like, "And the WORD of The LORD came unto".

Do you see how contradictory this sounds?

Men can lie, and are "desperately wicked"
Men put words to paper, specifically, the Bible on paper.
These men state, by putting words to paper, that they were divinely appointed by God to write down.
So . . . men thousands of years later should trust fallible men thousands of years before because they said they were "divinely appointed"?

Surely there must be more to their credibility than their statement that they're credible (and that is what the statement "And the WORD of the LORD came unto . . ." amounts to). That is inherently unreliable.

The Bible is still a book written by men. What they were inspired by, or whom, is still filtered through that fallible lens. I think this is factually undeniable. God may say something to any of us, but you have the right, and are justly rational, to cast a skeptical eye on any of our statements even if we cast those magic words, "And the WORD of the LORD came unto . . ." Even if we are absolutely accurate in relaying the message, we've been given rational minds for a reason, and it is logical and rational to be critical and skeptical of fallible men, particularly when Man creates centralized organizations that enrich certain men within those organizations, and engage in dubious and questionable practices to attain that enrichment and to attain power over fellow man.

And, again, I am not limiting my suspicion merely on Christianity or the Bible.

Edit: In conclusion, it wouldn't be a book that convinces me of any religion. It would be something above that.

marktheapostle Wrote:Isn't it interesting the fires that are fanned when anything about Chirst is brought up?

Why are people so afraid of the Truth? Why do people fear the Light? And why does this world run from the Way?

I know I don't fall under your comment, but, for the record, my comments would be the same for any centralized religion that enriches certain men by exploiting the spiritual vulnerability of his fellow men and, worse yet, his children. And, unfortunately, there are many of these religions.

And, on the other hand, I acknowledge the utility of religions in general historically in helping develop society. But under that umbrella of religions likewise is the whole pantheon, no pun intended, of religions that helped provide that structure, for better or worse.

kabluey Wrote:

MemphisTigerPawr Wrote:Man put the "WORD" on paper, but if you read it, you will find concerning these men, they were divinely appointed by God to write down His WORD. It will say something like, "And the WORD of The LORD came unto".

Do you see how contradictory this sounds?

Men can lie, and are "desperately wicked"
Men put words to paper, specifically, the Bible on paper.
These men state, by putting words to paper, that they were divinely appointed by God to write down.
So . . . men thousands of years later should trust fallible men thousands of years before because they said they were "divinely appointed"?

Surely there must be more to their credibility than their statement that they're credible (and that is what the statement "And the WORD of the LORD came unto . . ." amounts to). That is inherently unreliable.

The Bible is still a book written by men. What they were inspired by, or whom, is still filtered through that fallible lens. I think this is factually undeniable. God may say something to any of us, but you have the right, and are justly rational, to cast a skeptical eye on any of our statements even if we cast those magic words, "And the WORD of the LORD came unto . . ." Even if we are absolutely accurate in relaying the message, we've been given rational minds for a reason, and it is logical and rational to be critical and skeptical of fallible men, particularly when Man creates centralized organizations that enrich certain men within those organizations, and engage in dubious and questionable practices to attain that enrichment and to attain power over fellow man.

And, again, I am not limiting my suspicion merely on Christianity or the Bible.

Edit: In conclusion, it wouldn't be a book that convinces me of any religion. It would be something above that.

No, I don't see how contradictory it sounds. I don't blame you for questioning man or anything that is the work of his hands. Let me shorten my explanation some.

Men, under the divine inspiration of God, were used of God to write down His WORD. The Bible is Gods WORD, he simply used those men He chose as His penman. God is the author of the Bible.

Now, you may use a computer keyboard to write a paper or a book, but the keyboard is not the author.

God gave us the ability to reason, so by all means, we should use it.

Again, it depends on whether or not you believe the Bible is the WORD of God or not.

The Bible is not a book, written by men alone, but rather men under the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Not only that, Gods WORD is alive. It is unlike any other book you will ever read. It is The BOOK.

Let me share with you and anybody reading what the WORD of God says. Faith, cometh by hearing (or reading) and hearing by the WORD of God.

If someone desires to truly know if God is real or His WORD is alive, they must honestly search for Him with all of their heart, and pray and ask Him to reveal Himself to them. According to scripture, He does this one of two ways.

All creation testifies to Him. Even the rocks cry out that God is. His WORD tells us to "be still and know that I AM God." Secondly, He reveals Himself to us by His WORD.

By the way, if you deny that these men were divinely appointed, I suggest anyone interested in truth and with the intellectual ability of reasoning look at the price, each of the apostles and the early church members paid for being faithful to their testimony, as to what they had witnessed.

Would you die for what you knew to be a lie? Do you know 11 or 12 people who would?

Good stuff KaBluey.

MemphisTigerPawr Wrote:

kabluey Wrote:

MemphisTigerPawr Wrote:Man put the "WORD" on paper, but if you read it, you will find concerning these men, they were divinely appointed by God to write down His WORD. It will say something like, "And the WORD of The LORD came unto".

Do you see how contradictory this sounds?

Men can lie, and are "desperately wicked"
Men put words to paper, specifically, the Bible on paper.
These men state, by putting words to paper, that they were divinely appointed by God to write down.
So . . . men thousands of years later should trust fallible men thousands of years before because they said they were "divinely appointed"?

Surely there must be more to their credibility than their statement that they're credible (and that is what the statement "And the WORD of the LORD came unto . . ." amounts to). That is inherently unreliable.

The Bible is still a book written by men. What they were inspired by, or whom, is still filtered through that fallible lens. I think this is factually undeniable. God may say something to any of us, but you have the right, and are justly rational, to cast a skeptical eye on any of our statements even if we cast those magic words, "And the WORD of the LORD came unto . . ." Even if we are absolutely accurate in relaying the message, we've been given rational minds for a reason, and it is logical and rational to be critical and skeptical of fallible men, particularly when Man creates centralized organizations that enrich certain men within those organizations, and engage in dubious and questionable practices to attain that enrichment and to attain power over fellow man.

And, again, I am not limiting my suspicion merely on Christianity or the Bible.

Edit: In conclusion, it wouldn't be a book that convinces me of any religion. It would be something above that.

No, I don't see how contradictory it sounds. I don't blame you for questioning man or anything that is the work of his hands. Let me shorten my explanation some.

Men, under the divine inspiration of God, were used of God to write down His WORD. The Bible is Gods WORD, he simply used those men He chose as His penman. God is the author of the Bible.

Now, you may use a computer keyboard to write a paper or a book, but the keyboard is not the author.

God gave us the ability to reason, so by all means, we should use it.

Again, it depends on whether or not you believe the Bible is the WORD of God or not.

The Bible is not a book, written by men alone, but rather men under the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Not only that, Gods WORD is alive. It is unlike any other book you will ever read. It is The BOOK.

Let me share with you and anybody reading what the WORD of God says. Faith, cometh by hearing (or reading) and hearing by the WORD of God.

If someone desires to truly know if God is real or His WORD is alive, they must honestly search for Him with all of their heart, and pray and ask Him to reveal Himself to them. According to scripture, He does this one of two ways.

All creation testifies to Him. Even the rocks cry out that God is. His WORD tells us to "be still and know that I AM God." Secondly, He reveals Himself to us by His WORD.

By the way, if you deny that these men were divinely appointed, I suggest anyone interested in truth and with the intellectual ability of reasoning look at the price, each of the apostles and the early church members paid for being faithful to their testimony, as to what they had witnessed.

Would you die for what you knew to be a lie? Do you know 11 or 12 people who would?

Good stuff KaBluey.

I'm not saying they knew it to be a lie. At least not the apostles. Although I know of people who would die to defend a lie they profited from either emotionally, financially, or power-wise. You see it all the time. Even if they're good people, sometimes they can't accept the truth. Do people exist that would die to prevent a truth to come out? Certainly. That is in a sense dying for what they know is a lie.

But imo, whether they died for something they knew to be a lie doesn't affect my rational. Like I said, they don't have to KNOW it to be a lie for me to question the, for lack of a better term, "tangibility" of the connection from paper, to man, to inspiration. I think you are insinuating that there is something beyond the man's word to rely upon. And you have faith in that "something," that that "something" makes the connection from point to point in that stream more certain.

I sense that that "something" is unprovable, and can only exist with man's faith, and therein continues to lie the rub and the continuing obstacles between cultures and religions.

Man must have faith in "something" to believe in divine inspiration in any of these texts, because otherwise it would be too hard to defend trusting just a man's word.

And the size of that leap of faith depends on various things. Such as how literal one believes in a text. How supernatural the stories in that text may be. [edit to add: And the description of the deity/power/force. And perhaps the description of what "divine" means and encompasses.]

I don't know, when I take a step back and look at all the world's religions, and the religions that have fallen to the way-side, and all the kingdoms and societies that are intimately intertwined, I just see much more commonality among all these religions, both good and bad, than an arrow gently or forcefully pointing me toward one. Especially b/c each of these major religions emerged in a vacuum, a void which today is now gone. If they knew then what they knew now, many positions of churches, and many positions of these religions would change.

But change after centuries of ingrained, indoctrinated belief is tough; wars have broken out over that.

This doesn't even go into the level of resistance that addiction to power and money can inspire, and no centralized religion has proven immune from that addiction.

I'm sorry . . . I got a little on a tangent.

I'm enjoying this discussion as well. I personally believe there are many paths to that "ending," and perhaps I get the "something" that inspires my faith from when I step back and look at all those religions past and present as well as the civilizations and what they knew and could possibley have believed in at the time and why, and what I see in that big picture is the same magic that others see in the text of the bible, so that it's not because a man says he's divinely inspired, but something else. I just don't personally see it in the same way, although there are numerous valuable lessons to glean from it.

As far as the movie goes, it is like a political add. It is not geared to anyone that has their mind made up either way. It is aimed at the undecided or the uneducated. I would think that everyone on the board would agree that political adds are a dangerous thing to base your thought process. There are some very dangerous things in the books and more specifically on the websites.

Yes, you can totally know the plot of ANY movie well before it comes out. There were MANY reliable sites that leaked the last Harry Potter book before it came out. I could tell you the plots of a lot of movies that have yet to come out.

I won't enter into the whole argument of faith and spirituality, just wanted to clear up some things about the movie and how you could possibly know about it before it actually was released.

Christian groups slam new Kidman children's movie

Dec 3 08:33 PM US/Eastern

Kidman: Film’s Anti-Religion Message ‘Up For Interpretation’

Christian groups are up in arms here over a new children's film starring Nicole Kidman and based on an award-winning novel by British author Philip Pullman, accusing it of being anti-religious.
"The Golden Compass" which opens here Friday is the film version of "The Northern Lights," the first book in Pullman's "Dark Materials" fantasy trilogy aimed at teenage readers.

The books by confirmed agnostic Pullman trace the fate of a young girl, Lyra, as she becomes drawn into an apocalyptic battle of good against evil, meeting a host of strange characters along the way including a polar bear, voiced in the film by Ian McKellan.

Evil in Pullman's books is represented by the church, called the Magisterium, whose acolytes kidnap orphans across England to subject them to horrible experiments in the frozen northern wastelands.

"The Northern Lights" won Pullman the 1995 Carnegie Medal for children's fiction in Britain, and the final volume in his trilogy, "The Amber Spyglass" was the first ever children's novel to be awarded the prestigious British Whitbread Book of the Year award in 2002.

With its 180-million-dollar big budget movie, New Line studios is hoping to repeat the box-office success of its "Lord of the Rings" series.

And it aims to tap into the young audiences of cinema-goers who flocked to the five "Harry Potter" films making them big earners for Warner Bros.

But already "The Golden Compass" is whipping up the same controversy which saw the "Harry Potter" series based on the novels by British author J. K Rowling, accused by some on the religious right of promoting witchcraft.

The author's attack on organized religion has been toned down for the film, in a bid to attract as wide as audience as possible, something director Chris Weitz has acknowledged.

"In the books the Magisterium is a version of the Catholic Church gone wildly astray from its roots," Weitz wrote in the British Daily Telegraph.

But "if that's what you want in the film, you'll be disappointed," he warned.

However, the sanitized version of Pullman's book has failed to appease the Catholic League, which gathers some 350,000 members, and which has already been sending out leaflets denouncing the film.

"The Catholic League wants Christians to stay away from this movie precisely because it knows that the film is bait for the books," said president William Donohue.

"Unsuspecting parents who take their children to see the movie may be impelled to buy the three books as a Christmas present. And no parent who wants to bring their children up in the faith will want any part of these books," he added.

The League already took on the movie world in 2006 to denounce the blockbuster "The Da Vinci Code" and its central tenant that Jesus Christ had a child by Mary Magdalene whose descendants still survive today.

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops however has been more nuanced in its approach warning in a review of "The Golden Compass" of its "anti-clerical subtext, standard genre occult elements, character born out of wedlock, a whiskey-guzzling bear."

But it adds that "taken purely on its own cinematic terms, (it) can be viewed as an exciting adventure story with a traditional struggle between good and evil, and a generalized rejection of authoritarianism."

"The Golden Compass" will be released in some 3,000 cinemas and only 60 have so far refused to screen it, according to the industry daily Variety.

"It's this undisguised anti-religious theme that has numerous groups in a lather, but perhaps more of an issue for some ... will be the film's lack of exciting uplift and the almost unrelievedly nasty treatment of the young characters by a host of aggressively unpleasant elders," Variety added.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=..._article=1

TigerChick Wrote:So the movie critizes the church(s) and people are against it. I still say it is a freakin' movie and honestly the Catholic church is not exactly above criticism. I just don't see the controversy and all the publicity is going to do is sell more tickets. I am Catholic and me watching this movie will not change who I am or what I believe or don't believe. As for parents, they should research EVERY movie their kids go see, I am all for that. I also think parents can use this stuff to educate their kids and teach them to be open miinded without changeing their faith.

Since you claim to be Christian, which I am not judging, did you defend the Passion of The Christ during all of it's controversy?

I got tired after reading the first page of this, but, KLG keeps going into the Narnia/Bible thing and poking fun at it. If you did your research then you would know that C.S. Lewis converted to Christianity and wrote Narnia as a allusion to Christian principles and ideas. Sorry to point that out though.

From cnn (http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/1...index.html)

Is 'Golden Compass' 'selling atheism to kids'?Story Highlights
Some religious organizations unhappy with "The Golden Compass"

Movie is based on Philip Pullman novel; Pullman accused of "anti-God beliefs"

But other organizations supportive; one Catholic group offered good review

Next Article in Entertainment »




(AP) -- The plot sounds familiar: movie takes on religion, angers some faction of believers.


Dakota Blue Richards plays the questing child Lyra in "The Golden Compass."

1 of 2 But the furor surrounding "The Golden Compass," a $180-million fantasy epic coming to theaters next Friday, is more complex than that.

Based on the first volume in the award-winning trilogy "His Dark Materials" by religious skeptic Philip Pullman, the movie already has been condemned by conservative Roman Catholics and evangelicals. They say it will hook children into Pullman's books and a dark, individualistic world where all religion is evil.

But at least one liberal scholar has called the trilogy a "theological masterpiece," and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops rates the film "intelligent and well-crafted entertainment."

Meanwhile, some secularists complain the movie from New Line Cinemas waters down Pullman's religious critique. They feel sold out by the author, who has described himself as both an atheist and agnostic.

Starring Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig, "The Golden Compass" traces a 12-year-old girl named Lyra from Oxford, England, to the Arctic to the edge of another universe, where she becomes locked in a battle between good and evil. The characters are shadowed by their own "daemons," talking animal companions that take on soul-like qualities.

In early October, the New York-based Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights launched a boycott of the film, calling it "selling atheism to kids" at Christmastime in stealth fashion.

Director Chris Weitz has said he cut controversial religious content to make the film more commercially viable, with the plan of being more faithful to the original material in sequels.

For instance, the evil organization dominating the world is not "the church," as it is in the book, but the "Magisterium," which is getting criticism anyway because it's a Catholic term.

The later books are even more direct in their religious criticism. One character, a former nun, says: "The Christian religion is a very powerful and convincing mistake, that's all." Pullman himself has said, "I'm trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief."

Britain's National Secular Society, of which Pullman is a member, has said the changes made to avoid controversy amount to "taking the heart" out of the work.

Yet the film's co-producer, Deborah Forte, said that in 12 years of being associated with the movie and the books, not one young reader has mentioned religion to her. Children love the story and the characters, she said.

"I think it's a tempest in a teapot," Forte said Friday. "What we find interesting about our film is we've made this wonderful epic adventure story for families. ... We encourage parents to make their own decisions."

"The Golden Compass" arrives at an opportune time. Books by atheists are best-sellers, Hollywood studios are plumbing the fantasy genre for the next big franchise, and movies exploring faith are finding a place at the multiplex, if not always box office success.

The Pullman series follows the release of the first movie based on Christian author C.S. Lewis' "The Chronicles of Narnia." Both feature epic battles, talking animals, polar bears and a wardrobe. But from there, the works diverge.

Catholic author Sandra Miesel is among those who call "His Dark Materials" the "anti-Narnia." Miesel co-authored a forthcoming book, "Pied Piper of Atheism: Philip Pullman and Children's Fantasy."

Among her complaints: Every clergy person is evil, and their daemons typically take the form of snakes or frogs. And standing in contrast to the Christian belief in heaven, Pullman's afterlife consists of bodies breaking into particles and being recycled into the material world.

But Miesel isn't a believer in protests.

"That only gives it more publicity," she said. "I merely suggest that if you look at what the material is about, you might find it advisable to stay home, go to another movie, or read a good book."

Other critiques have appeared on evangelical blogs and Web sites. Adam Holz of Focus on the Family, writing on the Christian ministry's Plugged In site, calls Pullman's books and the film a "deliberate attempt to foist his viciously anti-God beliefs upon his audience."

Most diabolical, Holz said in an interview, is that Pullman's audience is children, setting it apart from another book-to-movie some Christians view as heretical -- "The Da Vinci Code."

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Office for Film and Broadcasting gave the film, which is rated PG-13, a warm review. The film is not blatantly anti-Catholic but a "generalized rejection of authoritarianism," it said.

While noting the story's "spirit of rebellion and stark individualism," the office said Lyra and her allies' stand for free will in opposition to the coercive force of the Magisterium is "entirely in harmony with Catholic teaching."

Sister Rose Paccate, director of the Pauline Center of Media Studies in Culver City, California, said the books portray benevolence toward children and a God figure -- just one that's much different than the one Christians know.

She sees irony in calls to shun the film, considering that one of Pullman's central themes is that people should not follow orders and forfeit critical thought.

"If you just say 'no' to your kids without engaging in a conversation, they're going to see the movie anyway and all you're teaching them is power, not really teaching your values," Paccate said. "If we have faith, what are we afraid of?"

Donna Freitas, a visiting assistant professor of religion at Boston University, goes a step further, calling the books a "theological masterpiece." Pullman's intent aside, she views the trilogy as a treatise on Christian belief.

To Freitas, the series' mysterious "Dust" -- portrayed in the books as connected to original sin -- represents the Holy Spirit. Pullman is not attacking religion but those who use power to corrupt, she said.

Freitas, who co-authored a book on Pullman and religion, says that "ultimately, the arch of the trilogy is about revealing God." E-mail to a friend

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Both Eva Green AND Daniel Craig? I really liked them both in Casino Royale.

Well, dang, I'm not going to continue to articulate my position in this thread, but I do want to point out there is a difference between religion and Christianity. I have really enjoyed this thread.

I am a Christian. Christianity is a relationship with Jesus Christ, whereby He IS our LORD and Savior. Christians learn (and are learning) to surrender their lives daily to the will of the LORD. Sometimes we fall short, because the flesh and the spirit are at war, at enmity, one with the other. This is why it is important for us to spend time in the Word, and in prayer, and in fellowship with other believers. This is how we mature and grow spiritually.

I feel compelled to share this. This is what Jesus says concerning those who would mislead little children, either under the guise of false religions or atheism, or secular humanism.

Hear The Word of The LORD.

Mathew 18:6 "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

I love you all, but Jesus loves you more. He died for you. Greater love has no man than this. Not only that, He rose from the grave. There is not another religion in this world who can make this claim. Jesus has conquered hell and death. Tomorrow upon this earth is promised to no one. If you died tonight, do you know where you would spend eternity?

USA Today's Review:

This 'Compass' saga goes south
Updated 15h 17m ago | Reviews5 | Recommend13 E-mail | Save | Print | Reprints & Permissions |


ABOUT THE MOVIE

The Golden Compass
* * (out of four)
Stars: Nicole Kidman, Dakota Blue Richards, Daniel Craig, Christopher Lee
Director: Chris Weitz
Distributor: New Line Cinema
Rating: PG-13 for sequences of fantasy violence
Running time: 1 hour, 53 minutes
Opens today nationwide

By Claudia Puig, USA TODAY

The key players and setting are certainly intriguing: Polar bears in armor fighting valiantly, a glamorously diabolical female power monger and a dashing adventurer coming together in an alternative universe that fuses retro and futuristic elements.
But The Golden Compass, based on Philip Pullman's 1995 fantasy novel, disappoints with its lack of character development and convoluted storytelling.

Lyra (Dakota Blue Richards) is the plucky protagonist. The pre-pubescent girl journeys from a quiet college town to remote icy regions searching for children who have been mysteriously kidnapped. Adventures ensue.

While the production design is glossy and appropriately fantastical, and the special effects and computer-generated segments blend nicely with live-action characters, the overall saga is surprisingly bland.

FIND MORE STORIES IN: New Line Cinema | Compass | Golden Compass | Ian Mckellen | Philip Pullman | Polar Bears | Lyra | Dakota Blue Richards
Nicole Kidman does a devilishly effective job as an impeccably dressed villainess, and Daniel Craig has a too-brief part as the mysterious adventurer who is Lyra's guardian. The highlight is a visually dazzling duel between armor-plated polar bears (voiced by Ian McShane and Ian McKellen).

Pullman's book is the first of a trilogy for young adults, His Dark Materials, so there are bound to be more movies. With the huge success of the film versions of the Harry Potter books, the Lord of the Rings trilogy and Chronicles of Narnia, this seems a no-brainer. Perhaps they can take a page out of the Potter book and change directors for each installment. While director Chris Weitz did a superb job adapting Nick Hornby's About a Boy, this fantasy action saga with a message doesn't seem to be his strong suit.

In the parallel universe in which the story is set, every person has a "daemon," an animal spirit who accompanies him through life. A child's daemon often changes forms, and audiences are likely to be enthralled by 12-year-old Lyra's daemon Pantalaimon (voiced by Freddie Highmore), who shape-shifts from ermine to wildcat to hawk to moth. Lyra and her daemon set out on a search for the disappearing children and also to learn about a supernatural force called "dust." But the perils she faces never seem quite tense or exciting enough to fully draw us into the tale. She forms a bond with one of the polar bears, Iorek (McKellen), but that connection, too, feels a bit lackluster.

Most of the villainous characters are connected to a sanctimonious organization called the Magisterium, which some readers have associated with the Catholic Church. The Catholic League has called for a boycott of the movie on the grounds that it promotes an atheist agenda.

There is no overt reference in the film to Catholicism or any religion, and the Magisterium officials are autocratic but not theologically oriented. Through Lyra's character, the film seems to focus on questioning authority of all stripes.

Readers should be warned that the movie stops short of where the book concludes in order to guarantee a happy ending. Actually, it feels like the kind of open-ended resolution that signifies a budding franchise.

uofmcamaro Wrote:I got tired after reading the first page of this, but, KLG keeps going into the Narnia/Bible thing and poking fun at it. If you did your research then you would know that C.S. Lewis converted to Christianity and wrote Narnia as a allusion to Christian principles and ideas. Sorry to point that out though.

I didn't know that. What denomination of Christianity did he convert to? Maybe that's where I'm missing the point. I'm Catholic and in our version of the Bible there are no talking lions or noble centaur warriors.

klg316 Wrote:

uofmcamaro Wrote:I got tired after reading the first page of this, but, KLG keeps going into the Narnia/Bible thing and poking fun at it. If you did your research then you would know that C.S. Lewis converted to Christianity and wrote Narnia as a allusion to Christian principles and ideas. Sorry to point that out though.

I didn't know that. What denomination of Christianity did he convert to? Maybe that's where I'm missing the point. I'm Catholic and in our version of the Bible there are no talking lions or noble centaur warriors.

I didn't know there was a Catholic version of the bible and a separate Christian version either. I also didn't know that your Catholicism practiced such unnecessary sarcasm.

uofmcamaro Wrote:

klg316 Wrote:

uofmcamaro Wrote:I got tired after reading the first page of this, but, KLG keeps going into the Narnia/Bible thing and poking fun at it. If you did your research then you would know that C.S. Lewis converted to Christianity and wrote Narnia as a allusion to Christian principles and ideas. Sorry to point that out though.

I didn't know that. What denomination of Christianity did he convert to? Maybe that's where I'm missing the point. I'm Catholic and in our version of the Bible there are no talking lions or noble centaur warriors.

I didn't know there was a Catholic version of the bible and a separate Christian version either. I also didn't know that your Catholicism practiced such unnecessary sarcasm.

There is a Catholic version that is different from the Protestant version. I though the main difference was that the Catholic version had the books of the Apocrypha in it but apparently the Protestant version has talking lions, evil white witches, and pedophiliac fauns. I'm not even gonna dignify the second part of your statement with a response.

klg316 Wrote:

uofmcamaro Wrote:

klg316 Wrote:

uofmcamaro Wrote:I got tired after reading the first page of this, but, KLG keeps going into the Narnia/Bible thing and poking fun at it. If you did your research then you would know that C.S. Lewis converted to Christianity and wrote Narnia as a allusion to Christian principles and ideas. Sorry to point that out though.

I didn't know that. What denomination of Christianity did he convert to? Maybe that's where I'm missing the point. I'm Catholic and in our version of the Bible there are no talking lions or noble centaur warriors.

I didn't know there was a Catholic version of the bible and a separate Christian version either. I also didn't know that your Catholicism practiced such unnecessary sarcasm.

There is a Catholic version that is different from the Protestant version. I though the main difference was that the Catholic version had the books of the Apocrypha in it but apparently the Protestant version has talking lions, evil white witches, and pedophiliac fauns. I'm not even gonna dignify the second part of your statement with a response.

Whatever you say man. If you are just doing this to mess with me, good job. If you are doing it to make fun of the Bible, I can't make you stop.

"Golden Compass" disappoints at box office
Sat Dec 8, 2007 5:41pm EST Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single

powered by SphereBy Dean Goodman

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - "The Golden Compass," a costly fantasy starring Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig, got off to a slow start at the North American box office and will likely fall short of opening-weekend expectations.

New Line Cinema's $180 million film sold an estimated $8.8 million worth of tickets during its first day in theaters on Friday, according to data issued on Saturday by tracking firm Box Office Mojo (http://www.boxofficemojo.com).

After Saturday and Sunday sales are factored in, the film will come in at No. 1 with about $28 million when the studios issue their weekend estimates on Sunday, said Paul Dergarabedian at Media By Numbers, another tracking firm.

New Line, a struggling Time Warner Inc unit hoping to launch another franchise along the lines of its blockbuster "Lord of the Rings" series, said last week it was hoping the film would open to between $30 million and $40 million.

"It's below expectations, but it's not an out-and-out debacle," said Dergarabedian.

Conspiring against the movie, he said, were such factors as a soft marketplace and unrealistic expectations for an epic fantasy filling the holiday void left by the "Narnia" and "Lord of the Rings" smashes.

A New Line executive did not return a call seeking comment.

Based on the first book in British author Philip Pullman's acclaimed children's series "His Dark Materials," writer/director Chris Weitz's film is set in an alternate world ruled by an oppressive religious authority. It features talking animals and a heroine played by youngster Dakota Blue Richards.

Even though the film downplays the religious aspect, it has been savaged by such groups as the Catholic League and the U.S. Conference of Bishops. Opponents have cited Pullman's unflattering portrayal of the church and specifically the Catholic faith.

Critics were also generally negative on the film, according to the web site Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com), which collates reviews.

The film represents another disappointment for Kidman, who had yet to headline a live-action $100 million movie. Her most recent successes were 2005's "The Interpreter" ($72 million) and 2003's "Cold Mountain" ($96 million).

She and Craig co-starred in the summer release "The Invasion," which flopped with just $15 million. Craig had better luck reviving the James Bond franchise last year with "Casino Royale" ($167 million).

New Line has also struggled. Its biggest movie of 2007, "Rush Hour 3" ($140 million), earned less than half of its predecessor. Other films, such as Jim Carrey's "The Number 23" and the wartime drama "Rendition" quickly came and went.