watch the golden compass go to hell

[Wilhelm-Scream]

but you sound like you could benefit from being taken down a peg every once in a while. you've easily got the biggest ego on these boards.

A problem with your perception.
Why, just yesterday, I totally totally went off on sandman138 based on my complete misunderstanding of his post.
I was wrong, very wrong, and then I laughed, at myself, because I was so extremely wrong that it was amusing.

If I'm wrong, I'll happily admit my fallibility. It's just that I'm almost never wrong.


Anyway, he has, for a fact, proclaimed that his novels are about killing God.
He has, for a fact said,
"I hate the Narnia books. I hate them with a deep and bitter passion, with their view of childhood as a golden age from which sexuality and adulthood are a falling away." He has called the series "one of the most ugly and poisonous things" he's ever read.

Both of those statements would also alienate fans, but he's outspoken.

AND, I am definitely not the only one who interpreted the statement the way in which it makes sense:



League President Bill Donohue said: "Eighty-five per cent of the people in this country are Catholic or Protestant and I'd like them to stay at home, or go see some other movie.
"Pullman is using this film as a sort of stealth campaign. He likes to play the game that he's really not atheistic and anti-Catholic. But yes he is and we have researched this.





” British author Philip Pullman has proclaimed that his novels are about “killing God.”

The author has described himself in interviews as both an atheist and an agnostic, and he has been quoted as saying his writing is “about killing God” and “trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief.” He wrote the “His Dark Materials” trilogy as a response to the popular “The Chronicles of Narnia,” a children’s fantasy tale by C.S. Lewis that is woven with Christian themes.

The film is based on the first book of a trilogy by Philip Pullman, an atheist who has expressed his disdain for Christianity and who, in the course of his three books, has the protagonist—a young girl named Lyra—join people who are trying to kill God and the Christian faith … and they succeed. Many Christians have expressed their concerns regarding the film.


“I am trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief,” Philip Pullman told the Washington Post for a piece published in February of 2001.

The Narnia stories of Lewis had been written to show how Jesus might look in another world. And it is said that Pullman despises them, calling them racist, misogynistic and devoid of love.




It's freakin' obvious.

 

[raybia]

A problem with your perception.
Why, just yesterday, I totally totally went off on sandman138 based on my complete misunderstanding of his post.
I was wrong, very wrong, and then I laughed, at myself, because I was so extremely wrong that it was amusing.

If I'm wrong, I'll happily admit my fallibility. It's just that I'm almost never wrong.


Anyway, he has, for a fact, proclaimed that his novels are about killing God.
He has, for a fact said,
"I hate the Narnia books. I hate them with a deep and bitter passion, with their view of childhood as a golden age from which sexuality and adulthood are a falling away." He has called the series "one of the most ugly and poisonous things" he's ever read.

Both of those statements would also alienate fans, but he's outspoken.

AND, I am definitely not the only one who interpreted the statement the way in which it makes sense:



League President Bill Donohue said: "Eighty-five per cent of the people in this country are Catholic or Protestant and I'd like them to stay at home, or go see some other movie.
"Pullman is using this film as a sort of stealth campaign. He likes to play the game that he's really not atheistic and anti-Catholic. But yes he is and we have researched this.





” British author Philip Pullman has proclaimed that his novels are about “killing God.”

The author has described himself in interviews as both an atheist and an agnostic, and he has been quoted as saying his writing is “about killing God” and “trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief.” He wrote the “His Dark Materials” trilogy as a response to the popular “The Chronicles of Narnia,” a children’s fantasy tale by C.S. Lewis that is woven with Christian themes.

The film is based on the first book of a trilogy by Philip Pullman, an atheist who has expressed his disdain for Christianity and who, in the course of his three books, has the protagonist—a young girl named Lyra—join people who are trying to kill God and the Christian faith … and they succeed. Many Christians have expressed their concerns regarding the film.


“I am trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief,” Philip Pullman told the Washington Post for a piece published in February of 2001.

The Narnia stories of Lewis had been written to show how Jesus might look in another world. And it is said that Pullman despises them, calling them racist, misogynistic and devoid of love.




It's freakin' obvious.

In spite of his intentions its a shame that I'm not going to see the movie adaptations of the other books. Being a film buff, its always interesting to try and decipher the hidden messages in movies.

Guess I'll just have to read the books instead.

 

[sinewave]

I'm not sure but headlines of atheists who are trying to remove G-d we trust from money or from the Pledge of Allegiance are heavily promoted with those efforts picking up steam and the removal of pray from public school I don't believe was the due to the effort of Christians so it seems to me that they may be an organized plan to undermine Christianity, if not religion period, in this country.

to my knowledge, those are small, isolated incidents. it's not like atheists act as a large organized machine to stamp out christianity's influence.

 

[Colossal Spoons]

I can't read anything on this page, Wil's ego is blocking my screen!

 

[raybia]

I can't read anything on this page, Wil's ego is blocking my screen!

Would that mean that Wil has a Superego?

 

[raybia]

to my knowledge, those are small, isolated incidents. it's not like atheists act as a large organized machine to stamp out christianity's influence.

But these incidents are becoming more frequent and their are a large number of books that have been written by atheists that Hollywood plans on adapting over the next several years.

 

[sinewave]

A problem with your perception.
Why, just yesterday, I totally totally went off on sandman138 based on my complete misunderstanding of his post.
I was wrong, very wrong, and then I laughed, at myself, because I was so extremely wrong that it was amusing.

If I'm wrong, I'll happily admit my fallibility. It's just that I'm almost never wrong.


Anyway, he has, for a fact, proclaimed that his novels are about killing God.
He has, for a fact said,
"I hate the Narnia books. I hate them with a deep and bitter passion, with their view of childhood as a golden age from which sexuality and adulthood are a falling away." He has called the series "one of the most ugly and poisonous things" he's ever read.

Both of those statements would also alienate fans, but he's outspoken.

AND, I am definitely not the only one who interpreted the statement the way in which it makes sense:



League President Bill Donohue said: "Eighty-five per cent of the people in this country are Catholic or Protestant and I'd like them to stay at home, or go see some other movie.
"Pullman is using this film as a sort of stealth campaign. He likes to play the game that he's really not atheistic and anti-Catholic. But yes he is and we have researched this.





” British author Philip Pullman has proclaimed that his novels are about “killing God.”

The author has described himself in interviews as both an atheist and an agnostic, and he has been quoted as saying his writing is “about killing God” and “trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief.” He wrote the “His Dark Materials” trilogy as a response to the popular “The Chronicles of Narnia,” a children’s fantasy tale by C.S. Lewis that is woven with Christian themes.

The film is based on the first book of a trilogy by Philip Pullman, an atheist who has expressed his disdain for Christianity and who, in the course of his three books, has the protagonist—a young girl named Lyra—join people who are trying to kill God and the Christian faith … and they succeed. Many Christians have expressed their concerns regarding the film.


“I am trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief,” Philip Pullman told the Washington Post for a piece published in February of 2001.

The Narnia stories of Lewis had been written to show how Jesus might look in another world. And it is said that Pullman despises them, calling them racist, misogynistic and devoid of love.




It's freakin' obvious.

are you even able to construct a simple, concise answer to anything? why must everything be a bloated, self-indulgent monologue with you? man, i don't even care about this topic, i'm just enjoying watching you make a caricature of "Y.O.U.R.S.E.L.F.", with a touch of celldog thrown in for just that extra little bit of crazy.

 

[sinewave]

But these incidents are becoming more frequent and their are a large number of books that have been written by atheists that Hollywood plans on adapting over the next several years.

yeah, if you listen to everything fox news says they are. i don't buy it, dude. which books are you referring to? why is a book written by an atheist so wrong?

 

[raybia]

yeah, if you listen to everything fox news says they are. i don't buy it, dude. which books are you referring to? why is a book written by an atheist so wrong?

It was a general statement made by a movie magazine, I don't remember which one.

Who said books written by atheists are wrong?

 

[Varient]

Reference the current tone of this thread:

meh.

 

[sinewave]

It was a general statement made by a movie magazine, I don't remember which one.

Who said books written by atheists are wrong?

the second the atheist community has even a 10th of the power the christian community has in this country, let me know.

 

[raybia]

the second the atheist community has even a 10th of the power the christian community has in this country, let me know.

You'll know. I don't know how much power they have but there does appear to be an effort to attack Christianity and religion at this time.

You have to at least see that don't you?

 

[ShadowBoxing]

man, i've never actually seen anyone 'own' wilhelm before. good work.

I should also point out the irony that Wilhelm got both quotes he posted off of an extremely pro-evangelical Christian propoganda site.

http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/11/philip-pullman.html

This might not be the site itself, but all sites I've found with variations of the article are very pro-Christian propaganda. None are very well researched either.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

i've tried looking for the original interview on the washington post's site, but it won't load properly, just the headline shows up, no text. anywho, i have a hard time believing he'd come right out and say he's actively trying to undermine christianity. that seems like it'd be career suicide with how influential the christian community is in america. i just wanted to see you be wrong for once. i like your posts, generally, and i agree with you on a ton of issues, but you sound like you could benefit from being taken down a peg every once in a while. you've easily got the biggest ego on these boards.

His actions certainly don't suggest he's trying actively to undermine a religion. Nor did he ever use the word "goal" in that particular quote. He's never firebombed a church or actively gone around calling preachers liars and charletons. He's even quoted as saying "if I wanted [to covert] I'd write a sermon not a story". Seems to me this is just a case of a Evangelical Christian website taking two measley quotes out of context in a smear campaign against someone else's movies. And if the best you can do is pull out two quotes you can't even substantiate by posting the whole article you must not have much to go on.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I can't read anything on this page, Wil's ego is blocking my screen!

are you even able to construct a simple, concise answer to anything? why must everything be a bloated, self-indulgent monologue with you? man, i don't even care about this topic, i'm just enjoying watching you make a caricature of "Y.O.U.R.S.E.L.F.", with a touch of celldog thrown in for just that extra little bit of crazy.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

are you even able to construct a simple, concise answer to anything?

Yeah.
Like a few posts ago, when raybia asked me if orange vitamin water and coffee taste good together, and I answered:

That taste bad
BAD!

...and yesterday, tzarinna asked what size font a guy's penis tattoo was written in, and I answered:

Anywhere from,

HOT ROD

to

HOT ROD
depending on the circumstances.

That seemed pretty concise.

why must everything be a bloated, self-indulgent monologue with you? man, i don't even care about this topic, i'm just enjoying watching you make a caricature of "Y.O.U.R.S.E.L.F.", with a touch of celldog thrown in for just that extra little bit of crazy.

1. Why do you care so much?



2. Why are people so threatened and angry about verbosity?
I haven't said one "crazy" thing.
All I've ever done is express my opinion and give examples of things.
People act like I'm struggling and straining inordinately to post.
I assure you, it's really easy to type and then copy/paste stuff.
Hardly any effort at all.

And the length comes from the insanity of having to explain the obvious to people.
He obviously answered:
"I want to undermine belief in Christianity."
THEN
"C.S. Lewis would think I'm doing the Devil's work."
(Why would he think I'm doing the Devil's work? - 'Cause of how I want to undermine Christianity.)

It'd be totally different if it went,
"What would C.S. Lewis think of you?"
"Uh...I wanna undermine Chritianity?...I'm doing the Devil's work?"

But he didn't, plainly (to me), and yet someone can't see what is right before their eyes, so, I was trying to show them what is plain to me, 'cause it's obviously really hard for them to see it.






The fact is, you said I "finally got pwned", and I didn't.
Is that so weird, when you're clearly right about something, and someone says you're not, to show them why you disagree.....on a message board?
Hahahahahaha, I think not.

Also,
Self Indulgent: excessive or unrestrained gratification of one's own appetites, desires, or whims

I don't know if you hang out at the Hype to change the world, or do some kind of important service to others or what.
But the SOLE reason I do is to gratify my own appetites, desires and whims.
But, I am very restrained, or I'd be banned....so, I guess the word "self indulgent" doesn't apply to me except with respect to the subjective word "excessive".....but there's even a standard here for what's an excessive number of words in a post and I haven't reached it, like, ever, except in PM's. *shrUg*

 

[ShadowBoxing]

The fact that you went so far as to dig up old quotes to prove you could be concise (one of which has big bold lettering in it) is being slightly hung up on yourself, don't you think?

Also, being verbose is not a skill.

"Briefity is the soul of wit" -William Shakespeare.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

His actions certainly don't suggest he's trying actively to undermine a religion. Nor did he ever use the word "goal" in that particular quote. He's never firebombed a church or actively gone around calling preachers liars and charletons. He's even quoted as saying "if I wanted [to covert] I'd write a sermon not a story". Seems to me this is just a case of a Evangelical Christian website taking two measley quotes out of context in a smear campaign against someone else's movies. And if the best you can do is pull out two quotes you can't even substantiate by posting the whole article you must not have much to go on.

Hahaha what a load!


Can we prove, right now that he admitted to wanting to undermine, six years ago?
Well, yes, we can prove that he said the sentence, but we can't yet prove, to your satisfaction, that he actually...meant it? Hahaha

OKAY


Would he be pleased if his writing caused someone to rethink and renounce their Christianity?
OBVIOUSLY
OBVIOUSLY
OBVIOUSLY

So, obviously.



You are being way too naive and way to protective of the guy.
I dare say, if it wasn't about this topic, (and if I wasn't on this side of it. ), you're normal cynicism would return....>

6 years ago, before there's any deal to make a movie out of his book, he says, "I want to undermine Christianity and C.S. Lewis would think that's the Devil's work."

THEN, when he has a multimillion dollar Wannabe Blockbuster coming out, released to the general public, standing to make him a fortune...?

"Oh, no...I have no prob with Christians. I have no agenda. "




Yeah, Bull****.
Notice how they HAD to alter the story and soften the tone before Nicole Kidman would even appear in it?
And how the first book isn't even the one where the agenda becomes so pronounced that critics said it started to ruin the story-telling??



And to suggest that you have to be radical and physically violent if you truly want to undermine a belief shows how little you have to go on, because that's absurd.
I TOtally have an Anti-Christian agenda and want to do anything I can to undermine belief in it.
I don't just disbelieve it, I think it's EVIL, and want to see it disappear.

Am I going to firebomb a church?
I assure you, no...

 

[gkokujin]

I'll tell you though, I'm pretty offended by what Christianity did to my life, and to my family's life, and what it's done to the world.

what did "IT" do?

How can what could be possibly viewed as a misinterpretation of the basic ideology and how it is properly supposed to be carried out affect your life in a negative way?

serious question.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Can we prove, right now that he admitted to wanting to undermine, six years ago?
Well, yes, we can prove that he said the sentence, but we can't yet prove, to your satisfaction, that he actually...meant it? Hahaha

Yes, actually. Meaning and context are beyond the most important things to prove when making any point. I could use quotes from Plato's Socrates to suggest he supported Christianity, or even Hinduism, but anyone with any knowledge of context and meaning would be able to shoot that arguement to sh**.

Would he be pleased if his writing caused someone to rethink and renounce their Christianity?
OBVIOUSLY
OBVIOUSLY
OBVIOUSLY

Would I be pleased if a person decided to vote for Clinton because of my campaigning. Obviously. Does that suggest I'm trying to actively undermine Edward's or Obama's campaigns. No.

6 years ago, before there's any deal to make a movie out of his book, he says, "I want to undermine Christianity and C.S. Lewis would think that's the Devil's work."

You added an "and", therefore distorting meaning of the quote. Any one with a remote knowledge of debate or persuasive speaking/writing could tell you what's wrong with doing that.

Can you even make an argument without writing it like some stand up comedy routine? I mean just once I'd like to see you write a paragraph that doesn't use bolded words and pretty colors to call attention to itself.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

The fact that you went so far as to dig up old quotes to prove you could be concise (one of which has big bold lettering in it) is being slightly hung up on yourself, don't you think?

"Went so far"??
LOL
I was showing him how unfair he was being by quoting a succinct post I made on the SAME FREAKING PAGE.

Also, being verbose is not a skill.

Never, ever said it was.
I only said that I have a thought, or feeling, and then express it here...and I'm too wordy on the internet for many people.
I never said that was a superior posting style.
It's a sucky posting style, because many will just skim your post, if they even bother to read it at all.
But that's my self expression.
Not "showing off a 'skill'".

"Briefity is the soul of wit" -William Shakespeare.[/quote]

Briefity?
Again, not trying to be witty, just typing my thoughts.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

"Went so far"??
LOL
I was showing him how unfair he was being by quoting a succinct post I made on the SAME FREAKING PAGE.

Never, ever said it was.
I only said that I have a thought, or feeling, and then express it here...and I'm too wordy on the internet for many people.
I never said that was a superior posting style.
It's a sucky posting style, because many will just skim your post, if they even bother to read it at all.
But that's my self expression.
Not "showing off a 'skill'".

It's not a "sucky posting style" because people will just "skim your post". God, your so arrogant that you even consider yourself bad at something because it calls less attention to you...w.o.w.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

It's not a "sucky posting style" because people will just "skim your post". God, your so arrogant that you even consider yourself bad at something because it calls less attention to you...w.o.w.

Why would you post if you didn't want people to read it?

It would be easier to type out yer spiel and not hit post.

It's common knowledge, I've even seen it in articles "Tips on sending more effective email." or "Tips on better posting"....be succinct, people don't want to read huge tomes, they get bored.

Common knowledge.

Hahahaha, I have to say "wow" to how there's literally no way I can win with some people. I'm arrogant...so, I admit my faults, openly, and then it's twisted into arrogance again, lol
Awesome!

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Yes, actually.

Uh...I know.

That's why I said,
"OKAY"
Why restate the obvious?

Would I be pleased if a person decided to vote for Clinton because of my campaigning. Obviously. Does that suggest I'm trying to actively undermine Edward's or Obama's campaigns. No.

That is pretty truthy. (except, by getting someone who might vote for Edwards to vote for Clinton, you are really undermining Edwards. You're actively trying to get them not to vote for him, which is what he's working for.)

But, tell me this....
If a guy asked you, "What would Edwards think of you?"

Would you say.
"I'm trying to undermine Edwards. John Edwards would think I'm working hard for Clinton and against Edwards."

That sounds redundant and screwy to me, sOr-ReE! lol

You added an "and", therefore distorting meaning of the quote. Any one with a remote knowledge of debate or persuasive speaking/writing could tell you what's wrong with doing that.

You're absolutely right and I honestly didn't mean to do it.
I said:

"I want to undermine Christianity and C.S. Lewis would think that's the Devil's work."

And I meant, the truth, which should've had the quotes end and begin again like this:

"I want to undermine Christianity." and "C.S. Lewis would think that's the Devil's work."

That's what I meant, sorry. I went back and underlined the AND, and forgot to add the quotation marks.

Can you even make an argument without writing it like some stand up comedy routine? I mean just once I'd like to see you write a paragraph that doesn't use bolded words and pretty colors to call attention to itself.

You're out of luck.
I don't tailor my writing style to you. I do it for "ME". As I said, I don't come to the Hype to fulfill your desires, or sinewave's, but mine and mine alone.

I guess it takes all kinds. *shrug*

 

[ShadowBoxing]

That is pretty truthy. (except, by getting someone who might vote for Edwards to vote for Clinton, you are really undermining Edwards. You're actively trying to get them not to vote for him, which is what he's working for.)

Unless I'm going around pulling Edward's signs out of the ground or some such thing, I'm not taking away his ability to campaign or rally his base. He's doing his campaigning, I'm doing mine. No one is undermining anyone. In the words of a famous football coach "It's not my job to coach your team".

If I'm effective in persuading someone to vote for Clinton I'm not undermining his efforts, he's undermining his own.

But, tell me this....
If a guy asked you, "What would Edwards think of you?"

Would you say.
"I'm trying to undermine Edwards. John Edwards would think I'm working hard for Clinton and against Edwards."

I frankly don't know what Edwards would say to me. Maybe he does think I'm trying to undermine his efforts, or doing the Devil's work. In honesty though I'm not. If I wanted to undermine him I would. But until you see my name attached to an attack ad, or find me attempting to sabotage his campaign headquarters I'm not doing anything of the sort.