UnNews talk:Fears film may spark fresh wave of deicides

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Killing God is not even original, the Roman Empire killed God by crucifying him on a cross, but he came back to life three days later. What this teaches us is that if God/Jesus is killed, he will just rise from the dead in three days or whatever he does in a situation like that. I mean that is how God works, if he is killed, he just rises from the dead and comes back. God is cool like that anyway. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't stop laughing over this movie and how much it plagiarized the story of Satan trying to kill God that was written over 4000 years ago. Not to mention the book of Revelation written over 2000 years ago. Not to mention that in order to kill God, you first have to acknowledge God exists in the first place. I mean they even got bears in armor, and golden objects, and assembled an army to fight God and opened up a dimensional rift to fight God and the fortress city, that it is way too ironic to ignore that it plagiarizes many religious works. I mean when it goes to DVD I might rent it to get a few laughs out of so much stuff they get wrong and all of the logical fallacies in the story the writer commits. I fail to see how religious people find it offensive, when it is basically an "own goal" for atheists in soccer/football terms, in such that the atheists keep scoring points for religious people just for acknowledging that God exists in the first place, in order to have a story about killing him. I mean if they don't believe in him, why not write a story in which God doesn't exist and there is no afterlife to open up a dimensional portal to in order to kill God? What next, maybe they will claim that someone else doesn't exist, and set off to kill Tom Cruise or The Dali Lama, or maybe Bill O'Reilly or even Michael Jackson? See they proved that such a person does not exist by killing them off. LOL! I think we should start a "Golden Compass" theory, in which you prove that someone does not exist by killing them off. I mean this is as funny as trying to kill off the universe or nature itself, and thus proving that they don't exist either. This is either the funniest movie I ever heard of, or it is the most expensive troll ever on religious people. :) --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I know, right? It's so funny! They took ideas and storylines from biblical stories and rearranged them in a modern context? Ridiculous! I bet they got half the stories wrong, too. And the logical fallacies! Apparently they're too obtuse to realize that they already acknowledged God's existance in the story - so nomatter how you read it, they've already failed! (At trying to disprove God, that is... which was of course their goal). Honestly, Phillip Pullman has clearly lost this debate. It's like he was trying to write fantasy novel or something. Feebas factor

I think you guys missed the point. It's a fantasy story: God is a fictional character. -- idiotic Ape (spit) (Riot Porn) 19:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I know it is fictional but Phillip Pullman said the whole series of books and the movie they are making is all about killing God. I also laughed so much at the Da Vinci Code that I could not finish that movie, which was yet another fictional movie that attacked God and Religion. The character of God in the Golden Compass is a fictional character, I know that. I guess what I am trying to say is that someone trying to kill God is a funny concept because that is what the New Testament of the Bible was all about. I mean some of the best books and Hollywood movies steal borrow from religious books anyway, even if those books were written 2000 or 4000 years ago. The Matrix did it (Neo was a Christ character, Agent Smith was The Devil), Star Trek did it (Spock was a Christ character, Kirk was the Peter character), Chronicles of Narnia did it (Asland was a Christ character), Legend did it (Ripped of The Devil for a character), Lord of the Rings did it (Gandalf was a Christ character), etc etc. Just that this movie seems to me to be funny in the way they are making it, even if they are toning down the Anti-religious and killing God messages in the movie. Then again I found the Exorcist funny esp when that girl spits out green pea soup, and everyone else found it scary. I admit I have an Andy Kaufman type sense of humor, and like him I find things funny even if hardly anyone else does. My son has an opinion of this movie, he calls it "stupid" like he did the Harry Potter movies and "The Da Vinci Code", but I think that it is so stupid that it is funny, like The Three Stooges are so stupid that they are funny. I mean The Golden Compass is sort of a deadpan slapstick style of humor anyway. It pretends to be serious, but ends up stupid-funny. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh by the way why did you delete my paragraph about Jesus being killed and coming back? You see Jesus/God was killed before and came back three days later in the New Testament. I found it to be relevant to the story/news article. Since this whole movie rips off religious texts, and killing God is not even an original idea. I mean it makes the whole concept of killing God funny, because you know even if someone kills God, he will just come back and rise from the dead, seeing as he did it before, and will do it again. Plus it was in reference to the Jesus articles with his last woods being "BRB LOL!" when being hung on the cross. I mean I don't take the movie or the books on the Golden Compass seriously, though apparently people seem to be taking it seriously like it is non-fiction or something. Just like the Da Vinci Code was fiction and people actually believed it was true events, and that is what makes it so funny. I mean I even had arguments with people that the Da Vinci Code was fictitious and a work of fiction by Dan Brown, but they still argued with me that everything that happened in the movie was true. Just like people believe that Star Trek is true and really happened. So you might as well quote the Jesus articles here as a reference that if killed Jesus would just rise from the dead, again, like he did last time. I do; however, find it funny that you thought it was crap and took it seriously enough to blank it out. I don't take any part of this article seriously nor any comments on the talk page either. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You guys do realize that the "god" in the book was just a super-powerful a-hole, so the closest plagiarism would be Stargate, right? Really, this is only a threat to Catholics, who believe the pope is infallible, and Evangelical, who think television personalities are infallible. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs)

If being an a-hole is punishable by death then 80% of the population on planet Earth would be killed as well. I still think that people taking this movie and books seriously and think they are true and not fiction is funny. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that I may have misinterpreted your first comment to a degree, and that sarcasm on the internet still mostly fails. Evidently some people are taking this movie too seriously, so I agree with you in that respect. I will also remark that I actually enjoyed the books a lot - biblical inspiration, deicide, paradoxic atheism and all. Feebas factor 02:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me say that if anyone's faith or belief is challenged by this work of fiction, then they had weak faith and beliefs to begin with. Yes there are messages in this book and movie, just as any other book or movie has messages in them. Which is why we go to college to study English Literature, and each person gets a different message or meaning out of the story than everyone else does. I myself find the whole story to be funny, because the writer is an Atheist, who is taking things from religious text and stories and rewriting them a bit, to I guess rewrite them to his own opinions and views that God deserves to be killed for the people who suffer. That he uses biblical inspiration, decides, and paradoxic atheism, to create a story that is all about killing God. I guess hardly anyone remembers the New Testament where God took on human form of his son Jesus and was killed on a cross to forgive sins and end the suffering of human beings after they died by forgiving them of their sins so they can enter paradise with him. Somehow most the religious fanatics forgot why Jesus was killed and rose from the dead and somehow seek out to "avenge his death by attacking non-believers and sinners" and now this author seeks to avenge the suffering that human beings have had by killing off God and calling him an a-hole. Yet logically people suffer because of the consequences of their own bad actions and behaviors (called sin) or due to the consequences of the actions and behaviors of others (like a drunk driver kills your parents in a car crash) yet instead of taking responsibility for our own actions and behaviors or blaming others for their own actions and behaviors this author like so many others blame God for the actions and behaviors of themselves and others and nobody takes responsibility for their own actions and behaviors and use God or The Devil or whatever as an excuse or scapegoat. It is like blaming God for the drunk driver who killed your mother and father and then you go join your Crazy Adventurer Uncle in a quest to kill God, and then enlist ice bears, Gytptians, Demons, Witches, etc to join your army to kill God, and don't blame the drunk driver at all for his actions and behaviors that he did of his own free will. I mean the whole concept of becoming moral or ethical is to take responsibility for your own actions and behavior and learn from your mistakes and try to be positive and do good instead of bad. Which is what moral Atheists and Theists are supposed to do anyway. Yet somehow it is human nature to blame someone else, usually someone in a power position higher than you are. Then it keeps going up that power latter until you reach the top and God is there, then you blame God, but never do anything to take responsibility for your own actions and behaviors and not hold others to be responsible for their own actions and behaviors either. So the Human race just keeps blaming scapegoats, until finally they reach the top and blame God and then they run out of who to blame. Yet Human beings learn from their own mistakes, the ones who refuse to learn from their own mistakes become "bad" or a-holes in a sense. Even God went through his own Evolution until he took on human form with Jesus, and became one of us humans, and died for our mistakes, and came back to life and said he would forgive anyone who asks for forgiveness. An ethical and moral person forgives others for their misdeeds, but with 80% of the world being A-holes, A-holes don't forgive do they? All God and religion, and even Secular Humanism and Atheism tried to teach people is to learn from their mistakes and take responsibility for their own actions and behaviors and improve themselves. Yet somehow those messages got lost, replaced with fiction to keep blaming scapegoats for our own suffering. Yeah it is funny because it is a "universe flopper" in which logic and reason are turned upside down and light becomes dark and good becomes evil and God is an A-hole because he gave us the freedom of self-will to decide for ourselves what actions and behaviors to take, instead of forcing everyone to become good and worship him, he instead gives us the ultimate freedom to decide for ourselves. This current world, God didn't make the suffering, we all made the suffering by everyone's actions and behaviors. What next, blame God for global warming and claim that is not man-made? We all made global warming, and most of our other sufferings. We need to learn to stop blaming others for our own bad actions and bad behaviors, and just grow up and become responsible human beings. Still I do not hate these books or movies, I find it entertaining as a comedy story, so there is some value to it. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools