Replies

In the movie, Contact, the notion that there is nothing beyond us (we and the other civilizations out there) came through as central. Given that Carl Sagan was a determined agnostic if not so arrogant as to present himself as an atheist, that's to be expected. In Taken, the same theme wafts through, piecing together what the little girl character said and what her great granfather, John, said regarding his race having evolved to a point where they lack a sense of good and evil, right and wrong. But it was unsettling that this notion be presented absent a notion of a Creator of us all!

Sadly, the beliefs espoused through this series appear to fit a 'new age' religious perspective, fostered strongly by a reliance upon science and the lack of gentility to exercise faith on a personal level; faith not as the faith we exercise when using a money changing machine or seating our big behinds in a chair, but faith in the spiritual things hoped for, the spiritual things not seen.

I'm firmly convinced that the vast universe of stars beyond our own is there for a purpose ... more than as a light show for our enjoyment. Exactly what that purpose is, well, I have a few notions, conjectures, but nothing to offer for scientists to poke and prod, as yet. I've explored in earlier writings the notion of we humans being something special in this unverse, something really important to the evolving universe. Spielberg and his team have done the same thing, but it saddens me that they tried so desperately to remain religiously void in the effort. There was a way to inject the religious nature of humankind, without playing favorite to a particular religion. That Spielberg chose to do this project this way, absent God, I find too hollywoodesque, to damn PC to 'new age' beliefs. Perhaps that's what the writer and his sponsor had in mind, a dry vessel after lowering it into the well. Empty men write empty works, yet in today's shallow culture, such is considered depth of soul. Isn't Sartre dead yet? When will Hollyweird stop trying so hard for the existential, to be meaningful?

THANKS!

In the movie, Contact, the notion that there is nothing beyond us (we and the other civilizations out there) came through as central.

Q: I noticed that. really cheapened the whole thing, to me. Such mindless nonsense. Such a groping for independence to the extreme. Crazy and silly, to me. Back to the making man the sum and extent of all things. Sigh.

But it was unsettling that this notion be presented absent a notion of a Creator of us all!

Q: FOR SURE!

Sadly, the beliefs espoused through this series appear to fit a 'new age' religious perspective, fostered strongly by a reliance upon science and the lack of gentility to exercise faith on a personal level; faith not as the faith we exercise when using a money changing machine or seating our big behinds in a chair, but faith in the spiritual things hoped for, the spiritual things not seen.

Q YUP! STRONGLY AGREE.

I'm firmly convinced that the vast universe of stars beyond our own is there for a purpose ... more than as a light show for our enjoyment.

Q: I'm convinced of the same thing.

I've explored in earlier writings the notion of we humans being something special in this unverse, something really important to the evolving universe.

Q: I think it's basically just what God has said--he's rearing up those to RULE AND REIGN with Christ evidently thoughout the universES and future ages.

Spielberg and his team have done the same thing, but it saddens me that they tried so desperately to remain religiously void in the effort.

Q: Well said.

There was a way to inject the religious nature of humankind, without playing favorite to a particular religion.

Q: I agree--but not to be politically correct! Sheesh.

That Spielberg chose to do this project this way, absent God, I find too hollywoodesque, to damn PC to 'new age' beliefs.

Q: VERY PC--a la globalism flavor, it seems to me. Can't imagine offending anyone around the globe--which is such a crock--the same people who brought us PC will be shuffling masses off to the extermination camps because they don't march to a very specific drum in a very narrow and rigid line worshipping the global leader. Sounds pretty offensive to me!

Perhaps that's what the writer and his sponsor had in mind, a dry vessel after lowering it into the well. Empty men write empty works, yet in today's shallow culture, such is considered depth of soul.

Q: Well said.

Isn't Sartre dead yet? When will Hollyweird stop trying so hard for the existential, to be meaningful?

Q: I didn't even think they did existential very well. Talk about shallow existential--shallow they did well.

Anyway--was disappointed it was SUCH A HUGE waste in so many ways it didn't need to be. They could have done SO MUCH BETTER! Sigh.

I think the existance of any life in the universe other than on Earth wrecks most all religions...

In the beginning, God made Adam and Eve...Not Adam, Even and little gray dudes.

Thus my basic problem with "Religion".

I believe there has GOT to be life out there. Do I believe they are visiting earth? Nope. But I would to think, and enjoy wondering if, it's possible.

I belive in God...I just don't think any religions on earth are correct. I have no doubt that the leaders of all religions are good, honest people...And I believe all of them ABSOLUTELY, POSITVELY believe their's is the "One true faith". But guess what? ONLY one of them CAN be correct. So,if Ghandi was correct, does that mean all the dead Popes and Mother Theresa are buring in hell? Hardly. I don't think God would be that cruel.