h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I know but it is something that was (particularly in Narnia, but also in Northern Lights) pointed out very carefuly. They were pale with black hair. It's a killing combo, IMO and both actresses would really have looked evil.

But the casting of Lee Scoresby, Lord Asriel and Serafina Pekkala (sp?) has just about persuaded me to see the film.

hell, we're havin a family trip to see it, me, b/friend, mum and her b/friend... Maybe my little bro too!

>> The daemons look rather bad though, too cgi. <<

Umm...what were you expecting? Real animals that can turn into other animals? Where do you get those?

My biggest worry after seeing the trailers is the woodenness of the acting, particularly by Lyra. So far as I can tell from the trailers and advertising, they should call this film "Hey Look! Polar Bears!"

But I'll probably go see it this weekend anyway.

RF

-Umm...what were you expecting? Real animals that can turn into other animals? Where do you get those?-

I once had a dog who turned into a pig at dinnertime.

<<... If it were up to 'church'es we wouldnt have surgery, the C section, bllod transfusions etc... they would have outlawed all of it if it were in use and the reasearch if not yet discovered...>>

Do you seriously believe that to be the case, and if so, how?

Religious objection to pain relief in childbirth only lost social force when Queen Victoria asked for it.

Medical science was held back for centuries because the church wouldn't allow anyone to look inside the human body. The dark ages lasted a lot longer than most people realize. I'm not convinced they're over yet.

A lot of religious Jews die without anyone knowing what killed them. God doesn't allow autopsies.

<>

So we're told - or so my Mum told me, yes, but *surgery*, C-sections etc? Give me a break!

(I just did some googling and all I could come up with, was page after page of stuff about Jehovahs Witnesses and blood transfusions. Fair enough - but they're not exactly mainstream, are they?

An article called 'refusal of treatment during pregnancy' was inaccessible to me, because I am not a health professional.

<>

Now that I didn't know! (Not being Jewish - Christians have no objections to autopsies...) I thought Jews allowed autopsies provided they were performed within 24 hours... (I heard that on a medical soap, but there you are, the only Jews I know here are Liberal...)

Vicky

Mother Theresa didn't allow medical treatment for her wards because their suffering was sent by God. We can't refuse His precious gift. She just baptized them and loved them to death.

On the other hand, she used her power to stop charity hospitals who did offer treatment. They offered birth control, another method of easing human suffering.

I know that I'm giving extreme examples here, I just wanted to make the point that, historically, religion hasn't been a friend to medical science.

Of course, I could also point out that many, if not most, hospitals who care for the sick and helpless were started by religious orders. There's a reason that the nurses are addressed as 'sister'.

Religious charity, whether Christian, Muslim or whatever is a force for good in the world. It's just too bad that we can't separate them from the superstitious fools among the powerful.

I do honestly believe that, yes... As there is currently proof of a few sects, if one extrapolates, (if it were up to these churches, which ws my point) then how far would it go? Yes, JWs were my initial thought on this with their refusal for blood transfusions, but I'm fairly sure it would/could go further than that, especially if you take Dark Ages ('pre-science') superstitious mentalities into the equasion.

OK, it's theoretical, we dont live in that environment, but for a few non-believers, I call it a close thing!

I do accept the point about many hospitals being founded by religious persons or organisations though, of course. i'm not extreme in my views about religion... Call it what you will, being as good as possible to others must be a good thing.

<>

There are two, AFAIK, the Jehovahs Witnesses and Christian Scientists. I really don't think extrapolating is legitimate here.

Tumsup, do you really *know* for certain that about Mother Theresa, or is that just an allegation from Mr Hitchens? It doesn't make any sense to me at all!

Vicky

I'm not certain that I would take anything from someone as angry as Mr Hitchens without a grain of salt. I had a closer source. Years ago, a friend at work told me about his church group sending some charity things to Mother Theresa to help with her mission. These things were the usual clothes and such but included some medical supplies. The medical supplies included things like aspirin and such like analgesics.
They recieved a scolding letter in reply. Painkillers are NOT part of God's plan. Pain is God's blessing; It helps us to understand Christ's suffering.

Physical pain and the contemplation of it have powerful psychological effects. Think of the torture porn movies that are so popular now. Sadomasochism runs deeply through the Catholic Church. They just see it as a spiritual experience.

I could give examples from other spiritual worlds but I'm late for my violin lesson. I think my teacher must be a masochist, She listens to me play.

Well, I suppose this is an aside now.

I don't see the point in trying to make the first film friendly to the "religious right" at all, by changing the nature of the magisterium or anything. I mean, they're just making problems for themselves come the third film. I don't think the philestines who kick up fuss about apparently strong atheistic message in a work of fiction are going to have the prescience of thought to realise that the series isn't an atheistic rant at all. If they watched it in a double bill with 1984 or something they might go 'Aha! It's about people' But they're not going to, and if they aren't already, they're going to go...

'God as shrivelly monkey? I am insensible with self righteous rage and will now make a lot of fuss because I don't like people even *insinuating* that as a <>I am not, in some way, a conduit for ultimate truth'

But that isn't even the worst bit. The worst bit is that some even worse bast'ads will understand where the attack is directed but will chime in with the nutters just because they'll see the whole thing as bad press for their cause and or business.

Slightly off the point (don't click if you're squeamish) this is a documentary that will be aired this week, about a Jehovah's Witness:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/03/wface103.xml

RF

<>

Man alive! It goes without saying, that doesn't represent Christian orthodoxy... as I know you know... That's shocking (and I must say very disillusioning for me. )

Thanks for the info!

Vicky

I just went to a preview of the movie, and I thought it was *really* good. Some things I wasn't thrilled with, but on the whole I thought they did an excellent job. Interestingly (predictably, really) they never made the connection with the Magisterium and the Church, and although they said "Authority" a few times they never went any further. They'll just have to deal with that later...

Nor does the book, really. It's not, in the foirst book at least, that religious at all. After all the hype I was expecting PP to name names and placez, but he doesnt, it's quite subtle until the end of the trilogy. It's an authority all the way through, it only becomes religious as a by-the-by really...