The Golden Compass

[basildestiny]

SIGH! I am a lot disappointed. I really wanted to see this movie.

It looked really cool! Fighting polar bears voiced by Gandalf/Magneto/Ian McKellan! Nicole Kidman! Talking animal friends!

But I should have known something was up when they were called daemons. Duh.

The Snopes' site

I really don't understand that kind of hatred. I guess I actually do understand that kind of hatred. I know exactly who wants to kill God. That's no mystery since he's already killed God's son.

And I know that this (by this I don't mean this post, but I mean opposition to the movie) will all get twisted and put on Christ Followers as we are intolerant of others. Or else we just aren't tolerant of ideas different from our own. It should not surprise anyone that we don't like movies based on books which kill the Creator of the Universe. Regardless of your opinions, Christ Followers are not out to kill other people's gods. Christ Followers are called to show the world the love of Christ. Being flawed sinners ourselves, we have failed and will fail at that. Our failure doesn't nullify the commandment "You will not kill."

So now I'm really disappointed. I was really looking forward to seeing that next month...next week actually. Kind of ironic that the same company that made Lord of the Rings is making this movie. Since Lord of the Rings is J R Tolkien's epic Christian Tale and that he was friends with C S Lewis. C S Lewis who is hated by Phillip Pullman for his Christian story The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. So it's like one degree of seperation. I have a feeling that might have been the idea though. Get the folks to come see the movie which should be awesome cuz its by the same folks who did LotR which was awesome! Weren't some of the same folks who did LotR effects also in Chronicles of Narnia? I think so, but I couldn't find it for certain. I should just looked on the wiki, but it's too late for that now.

I really wanted to see that. =\ ._.

Comments

[basildestiny]

No, you wouldn't rank as one of those. You are always eloquent and logical and non-emotional which is key. I really don't talk to those folks anymore. Or else we've had our blow ups and come to a conclusion. But you just never know when you post some of the stuff we're talking about debating. Sometimes it touches a sore spot. But I think I have the solution for that: a filter. I'll add you to it and then see if anyone else wants on. I don't want to start posting that kind of stuff willy nilly. People don't neccessarily want to read that when they go to their personal journal.

I do believe that God, being able to create the universe, is quite capable of making sure His Word is properly translated. So I believe that book will be very good at describing Him. Actually it is the source for descriptions of Him. Though he does reveal Himself in other ways as well.

Having come from the other side, I'm not really interested in why Phillip Pullman doesn't believe in God. He's free to do so. I personally don't believe he needs to go enlittling unsuspecting children and their parents hence this entry. I have already convinced myself that God didn't exist and then come back from that after I found compelling personal, logical, literal, and historical evidence.

Glad you were able to get back to it. Always interesting debating with you.

[vitani-le.livejournal.com]

Woo, I'm back again! (One week of finals and moving back into the parents' house later...) Sorry I'm so horrendous with responding quickly; believe me, it's not just you, I'm like this with everything.

I'm very glad to hear that you enjoy debating with me. I've always enjoyed doing it with you; you are the most eloquent and rational of the people I know who are rather far away from me on the political and religious spectrums. And I do quite like your filter idea; use whatever means you need to express what you really think and believe about something. That's what LiveJournal's all about.

I've heard the argument that God would ensure that His Word be properly translated before. What I've never heard is a response to this question: What about inaccuracies in translation that have been observed, such as the original use of the term "beulah" when referring to Mary, the mother of Jesus (a word that means "maiden", but does not directly refer to a woman's virginal status) that is often translated into "virgin" in English? How is this resolved?

Um... I don't know what "enlittling" means, nor can I find it in the dictionary. Is that a typo of some sort?

I'm very curious to know what your "compelling personal, logical, literal, and historical evidence" is. (And yes, I would be scrutinizing it for inaccuracies, but I would also be looking for new, previously unknown-to-me information too.) But I know that's far, far too much to answer in one post, so I'll leave that for the filtered posts later. ;)

[basildestiny]

Welcome back! I haven't done the filter idea yet. Just haven't been in the mood to look up reference materials and I've been busy working and getting ready for Christmas.

I'm sure enlittling was a typo, but I don't know what I was trying to say now.

I wouldn't have an answer to your question simply because I've not been bothered by it to research it. I'll see what I can find out. My unresearched answer would be to say there is other contextual content to leads to virginal status. It depends on the verse in which you are referring as well.

I'll see what I can find out and get back to you. And I'll cut this one a little short. It's been a long day and too long to clearly or accurately respond.