Posted on 10/17/2005 1:44:44 PM PDT by DoctorRansom
Author Philip Pullman has attacked plans to turn The Chronicles of Narnia into a movie series, calling CS Lewis' books "racist" and "misogynistic".
The first film in the series - The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe - is due to be released in December.
His Dark Materials author Pullman said the 1950s stories were "reactionary".
"If the Disney corporation wants to market this film as a great Christian story, they'll just have to tell lies about it," he told The Observer.
[. . .]
But Pullman said the Narnia books contained "a peevish blend of racist, misogynistic and reactionary prejudice" and "not a trace" of Christian charity.
"It's not the presence of Christian doctrine I object to so much as the absence of Christian virtue," he added.
"The highest virtue - we have on the authority of the New Testament itself - is love, and yet you find not a trace of that in the books."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
> we smile only at the discomfort of disgruntled Atheists here
Very mature.
Kick a rock.And?
Ah. Creationism.Yes?
>It's not evidence, it is, as I said, hearsay.
Was the existence of Sodom and Gomorra hearsay? The Bible was the only written evidence we had that they existed until they were confirmed via archeological digs. The authors of the New Testament knew the principles involved if they were not themselves the observers. Even Pompeii had scant, if any, historical evidence before it was found, and that was a whole city. It's really good evidence based on what we typically have from that time period. If the event wasn't "supernatural" or didn't have current political/religious implications, the evidence would be considered definitive by the overwhelming majority of scholars.
>Yup. Probably Zeta Reticuli 4.
Works for me.
> Was the existence of Sodom and Gomorra hearsay?
How about Troy? Or Ubar? Or Vinland?
I guess that means that the Iliad, the 1001 Arabian Nights and the Viking tales are all true!
>> Kick a rock.
> And?
You'll discover an arguement for reality.
> The term isn't nearly as stigmatized as you may believe.
Just among those with some actual science.
> I'm more and more perplexed by the naive people who assume that everyone on FreeRepublic is conservative and the place is monolithically closed to disagreement. To them I say, presenting for your consideration, OrionBlamBlam and DoctorRansom ...
So you're admitting that you're not a conservative?
So you're admitting that you're not a conservative?No. Only that thought isn't nearly so uniform on FR as some would have us believe. Instead, even among conservatives, the discussion and debate over issues thrives. Excellent.
Just among those with some actual science.Again, you narrowly redefine "science" to suit only your own materialistic myopia, friend. Please read the article I mentioned before, for more on the very interesting differences between actual science and origins beliefs -- both creation and evolution, and everything in between. Without some open-mindedness to the perspective of the other, I fear we'll just continue in a cyclical argument.
> you narrowly redefine "science" to suit only your own materialistic myopia
Uhhhh.... yes. If it relies upon the supernatural, *by* *definition* it's not science.
What scientific disciplines can you name that include "and then a miracle happens" in the process?
Okay, I'm giving up. I'll continue this discussion once you prove that you are a real carbon-based human being and not some sort of sophisticated Turing test.
> Okay, I'm giving up.
So do you, or do you not, admit that the existence of a real place within a work of literature does not mean that the work of literature is necessarily a work of nonfiction?
The only problem with your statement is that Pulp Fiction and Sin City really are masterpieces.
What is a Pullman and who cares what it thinks? My next door neighbor thinks this will be great and their name is Smith.
I have to agree. I'll admit I've never heard of Pullman and I'm not familiar with his books but from the sounds of it he's staked out his position a long time ago. He has a passion to fight against Christianity at all costs and is threatened by even the appearence of Christianity... especially if it's going Big Screen and getting Big Media Attention. I think he's making a fuss over it all just because he can. He has nothing better to do with his time than to write against something he fears. We all should probably feel sorry for the man, he probably had a scarring childhood expirience, has tried supressing the memories but the severe psychiatric trama is escaping him, expressing itself through that of an enraged atheistic theology. He probably needs therapy. Poor lost soul.
>> But even in the absence of prayer and faith, the Father is
>> present.
>If that's true, then sin is tolerated in Gods presense.
>Pretty simple.
You are right. Sin is tolerated on earth because God respects you enough to allow you to choose between good and evil. What you choose is what you get for eternity. You are being tested.
I should have said, "Sin won't be allowed in God's presence in the Kingdom of Heaven." After all, the Devil stands in the presence of God accusing believers day and night.
I'm sorry for my mistake. May you pass this test, and enter into life. But I'd be burdening you if I said that your sins must be conquered with your own strength. You can't. But if you ask Jesus to help you, with a faithful and open heart, He will.
Have a great day.
But to be expected when you troll threads, as you have a history of doing.
If it relies upon the supernatural, *by* *definition* it's not science.But your definition is inaccurate -- it's merely a materialist philosophy.
What scientific disciplines can you name that include "and then a miracle happens" in the process?:-) Try: Almost all of the General Theory of Evolution. Note: this is not observable, testable, natural selection based on variations within species based on the sorting of genetic information that is already there, but the GTOE that is based entirely on spontaneous generation and never observed repeated, mutation-sourced additions of new genetic information.
If it relies upon the supernatural, *by* *definition* it's not science.But your definition is inaccurate -- it's merely a materialist philosophy.
What scientific disciplines can you name that include "and then a miracle happens" in the process?:-) Try: Almost all of the General Theory of Evolution. Note: this is not observable, testable, natural selection based on variations within species based on the sorting of genetic information that is already there, but the GTOE that is based entirely on spontaneous generation and never observed repeated, mutation-sourced additions of new genetic information.
Evolution is mostly carried on by change, not addition of information. For what it's worth all the machinery of life is present in single celled organisms, and the information content of "higher" species is comparable. Evolution basically proceeds by gradual modification of parameters, not by adding drastic amounts of new code. The genome of plants and insects is not necessarily simpler or shorter than that of humans. In many cases the genome of other creatures is longer than that of humans.
How did the genomes of single celled organisms reach this level of complexity? Good question, but 85% of the history of life has been erased by time. We simply have no surviving evidence of early life.
>> If it relies upon the supernatural, *by* *definition* it's not science.
>But your definition is inaccurate
No, it's quite accurate. Science is not a conclusion, but a process. It is a way to understand thbe universe and the way it works, and nobody has ever had any success trying to incorporate miracles into it, because miracles are untestable, unrepeatable and basically unrecorded.
>> What scientific disciplines can you name that include "and then a miracle happens" in the process?
>:-) Try: Almost all of the General Theory of Evolution
Since when is mutation (nd observable phenomonon) and more capable critters breeding more prolifically than less capable ones (also an observable phenomonon) somehow a miracle?
That's all evolution is... those two things occuring over time.
> the GTOE that is based entirely on spontaneous generation and never observed repeated, mutation-sourced additions of new genetic information.
What? Addition of new genes into gene codes is observed all the time. That is, for example, what a retrovirus does. It splices itself into your genes. And gene addition through replication error has also been observed a multitude of times.
New genetic info is added fairly easily, but randomly. Makes evolution possible.
If you invoke miracles to explain past phenomena, then all of science goes out the window, because nothing can be relied upon then. Who can say, then, that birds remain airborne because of aerodynamic processes rather than through the direct, and capricious, will of some god or other?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.