The Golden Compass

[serrebi]

I'm not a christian or an athiest, but this movie looks so corny. The storyline has been done 1000's of times before. Go see a movie that isn't anti religion, like the Chronicals of Narnia movie, throw in a shrek, some harry potter, and something I forget, and you've got this storyline in a nutshell. Acting is horrible[I've seen the 10 minute trailor]. Even before I started hearing about the religious flaming coming out from this movie, I was turned right off this movie because I'm a fan of the Narnia series. The storyline is such a copy of lion witch and the Wardrobe[witch living in north, more I can't remember]. What's sad is at first, I didn't even know this was a book series. Now, knowing that this obviusly cheesy copy cat is a book series, really adds that the author obviusly has very little unoriginality, and probably wrote this book series for immature attention, rather then actually standing up for what he believes in, or anything with real marret. This movie is such a flavor of the moment it's not even funny.

[Elrohir]

Here's another good article on it. http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies ... mpass.html

[STRYPER]

Here's another good article on it. http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies ... mpass.html

WOW!!

This article is amazing. Anyone even slightly interested in The Golden Compass should read this article. I know it's a little long but it's worth it.


Here are some quotes:

Firstly, some more Phillip Pullman anti-God quotes:

Pullman has painted a picture of the church—represented by "The Magisterium" in his stories—that basically reflects only those ways in which the church has abused power. And he has used that selective reflection as an excuse to write off Christianity as a whole. That's sort of like condemning the entire produce section in a grocery store because a few of the apples were bad. (And "Magisterium" is not something Pullman just made up. It's a very real word referring to the church, particularly the Roman Catholic Church. So he's not trying to cloak his intentions here.)

"I’m trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief"

"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. [They are] one of the most ugly and poisonous things I've ever read."

Also, in my quest to determine whether it is God's will for me to boycott this book or not, these quotes helped immensely:

They also could pose a threat if parents forbid these stories in such a way that the child becomes fascinated by the forbidden book. In elementary school, I discovered that adults had crossed out certain words from storybooks like Huckleberry Finn. This became the most interesting aspect of the book for me: I held the pages up the light, fascinated by what had been crossed out. If we make these books seem more powerful and dangerous than they are, and outlaw them, we have just thrown fuel on the fires of curiosity. Better to teach our kids discernment, so that if they do read the books, they can see Pullman's deception for themselves. (And this raises the question: How many adults are discerning enough to read these books "with eyes to see"?)

Essentially, don't behave in ways that the Magisterium in Pullman's books would behave. You'll just make his stories more persuasive, by confirming for the culture around us that Christians only really get excited when they're condemning something.

Instead, respond with grace and love. And truth. Admit that, yes, Christians have committed grave sins in the name of Christ, and that those shameful misrepresentations of the gospel have made many people fearful of, and even repulsed by, the church. But Christians have been called to serve the oppressed, proclaim freedom for the captives, bring healing to the sick, to seek justice, to love mercy, to walk humbly, and to bring good news of "great joy." And by God's grace, many are living out that calling. They paint quite a different picture than what Pullman has painted.

It's a very helpful article and it's even abridged!!! The full article (a blog post) can be found with a link at the top of the page (or here)

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, calm down

Suggestion duly noted

And Alisha--while the ideas behind my post are still held by me, I probably could've been more diplomatic. For that you have my apologies.

Sorry if it annoys me when me when people take one extreme without seeing the other side.

What makes you so sure that those on one extreme here haven't seen the other side?

That's the very attitude I was talking about up there--we say we don't like it, and you immediately assume that we haven't looked into it at all.

As a history major

ooo, kudos on that ^_^ That can be a fun field of study.

I should have realized that sooner that nothing anyone said would change your mind. I was trying to contribute by bringing another point of view about the topic. Again I'm sorry. You can go back the protests and boycotts all you want.

1. No need to apologize.

2. There's the attitude again.

Again, I'm sorry I was harsh and will respond to your arguments from now on--and not necessarily the attitude. Or maybe both, but never just the attitude

I only ask you return the favor, and do not go and assume that those who are against it are in such an opinion without giving it any thought.

[Alisha Richardson Wolfe]

What makes you so sure that those on one extreme here haven't seen the other side?

I read the posts. And one person in the entire post said that they read the books. I probably shouldn't have assumed that everyone who's posted hasn't read the books. Maybe they did and came to the beliefs that they held through that. But it's hard to really argue against something you don't really know.

I'm halfway through the Golden Compass and so far the closest to religion he has gotten is the church. And here's my thoughts on what I've read so far. The church so far resembles the church of the Middle Ages (historian in me is showing). And (attitude warning) I dare someone to tell me that the church during that time didn't have problems. As I've read I wondered, would the church have grown to something like this if the Reformation hadn't happened? It's an interesting question as the church in the book is very controling and has massive powers (I'm thinking of the popes with their own armies and control over the kings of all European countries).

Well that's my thoughts so far. I might have more later when finals are over with and I've caught up on sleep.

[Jonathan]

And one person in the entire post said that they read the books.

Who says you necessarily have to read the books to reach a conclusion?

And I'm not talking about just a jump to conclusion--I mean do you think someone can come to the conclusion of being against the books after much honest research--but not having read the books?

I'm halfway through the Golden Compass and so far the closest to religion he has gotten is the church.

Lets keep that in mind. Have you seen some of what he's said about Christianity?

You put those two things together and there's plenty of reason to be concerned. He's got an agenda--that is undeniable.

And here's my thoughts on what I've read so far. The church so far resembles the church of the Middle Ages (historian in me is showing). And (attitude warning) I dare someone to tell me that the church during that time didn't have problems.

Show me a time when the church as a whole has been problem free.

You can't just throw the whole Christian faith out b/c fallible human beings have always been involved--a fact Pullman would do well to recognize.

As I've read I wondered, would the church have grown to something like this if the Reformation hadn't happened? It's an interesting question as the church in the book is very controling and has massive powers (I'm thinking of the popes with their own armies and control over the kings of all European countries).

I agree that the history we know of the 15th-17th centuries would've been radically different. But now? In our modern era? The church would probably be more involved in world governments than it is now, but I have the feeling that 1. With secular governments gaining more powerful weapons, the church wouldn't be the dominant power and 2. The falling away of the masses from the churches power was inevitable.

There are other flaws in that proposal. The first is that if Luther hadn't come along, I'm sure someone else would have.

The other one is that despite being filled with fallible human beings, the church is ruled by Jesus Christ. On that fact alone I can say no, it wouldn't have become as cruel as the Magistirium. Besides, as I noted in the previous problem (one paragraph above), there would've been those in the church who would've stepped in and prevented it from becoming that cruel.

In conclusion--would history have been different? Of course. Would the church be a heartless cruel and Nazi-esque organization? Nope. Not a chance.

Well that's my thoughts so far. I might have more later when finals are over with and I've caught up on sleep.

Ah, finals. I don't know about you, but I'm suffering from an acute case of procrastinitis as far as my studying goes

[Elrohir]

Pullman is a mess of a person. When asked about God, at the beginning of his answer he said he's an atheist, at the end of his answer he said he's agnostic. He can't seem to make up his mind. Despite the fact that Pullman's books clearly draw from things like LotR and Narnia, he claims he's not interested in LotR and finds Narnia "ugly". He is also ignorant of Christianity. Sometimes he says that his books are about the problems with religion in general, then he'll change his mind and say that he's specifically trying to undermine Christianity, all the while he makes no references to Christ who is the center of Christianity.

Anyway, my friend saw the movie. He hadn't read the book and didn't know anything about Pullman. He said the movie was a lame rip off of Narnia.

[STRYPER]

Thankfully many (fans and critics alike) are saying that the movie is horrible and very poorly made. Fans are disappointed with it and critics are urging casual viewers to avoid this holiday season.

[Thursday Next]

Pullman was saying that he wasn't going to let the story's atheistic message be glossed over in the next two movies. That's only dependent on if there's a next movie.

[Alisha Richardson Wolfe]

Pullman was saying that he wasn't going to let the story's atheistic message be glossed over in the next two movies. That's only dependent on if there's a next movie.

And if there does happen to be one, if they let him anywhere near the script.

[Movieman]

Like many other, I've heard as well that a lot of the book was abridged so they could make the movie. I hate when they do that in movies... except this one. I could care less about this movie.

[Danielle Abigail Maxwell]

Hmm... My sister is right. Oops. Being quiet now.


My views: I went to see the movie (yeah, yeah, I know what you are thinking. I SAW IT?!!! Hey, I got yelled at by my math teacher the Friday before she left for ECUADOR! Just because I was TALKING about it. Oh come on people!).
One thing about the movie. No mentions WHAT SO EVER! of a God, or even two sides to any story on this one. It ends sssooooo abrubtly at the end, it becomes stupid. You have to understand everything to just get it. I mean, one second this, and then something else. You blink, you miss somthing. I thought the movie was stupid. Pointless. I think people are making a big deal out of nothing.
Guess What? I watched Harry Potter for goodness sakes. I own all four movies, and my Uncle is getting me the fifth. I own all the books (except 7). Does that mean I'm going to start practicing witchcraft and believe there is no God, or believe what is in The Golden Compass Trilogy. NO! I think people are taking this too seriously.
Yeah, so, the writer of the books (me think) wanted to create a series against God. What do you think J.K. Rowling was doing with witchcraft and good verses evil? It happens all the time. (let's not mention Narnia, but we knew the intentions behind C.S Lewis also, so maybe I shouldn't go into that.)
But I beleive there is no reason for people to make a big deal. I know they want to because of what happens, but in The GOlden Compass, this movie out right now, nothing happens. Zip, Nadda, nothing. If you want, see the movie, know what you are going into and seeing, and know that it's a MOVIE! It's like a book, a movie is the same. You can see this movie, and ignore the rest. Nothing happens in this one. Pul-ease. It was the most boring movie ever. I had more fun in HP and I know that ain't real. Half this movie was unbelievable anyway.
I never read the books and I really don't want to. I know my sister is (two of the books are sitting on her bedroom floor, discarded by the looks of it.) But I don't think you have to read a book, if it is based off a book, before you see the movie. I didn't for some of the HP movies, I have yet for "A Walk to Remember", and there are probably plenty of others. Narnia included (half way through the magicians Nephew, The LIon THe Witch and the Wardrobe, and Prince Caspian. BORING!). So many, yet I know the movies, seen them.

But I will say, Nichole Kidman is pretty! I may be a girl, but what she looked like... WOW!!!!!!!

Yeah, so, I probably just said everything wrong, but for me, I still believe in God. Just to say, HP hasn't influenced me, so who says TGC will? HP is more influential and dangerous, LITERALLY!!!!

[jollyholiday]

I've read the books and they do deal specifically with our Christian God. This becomes more and more clear throughout the trilogy. In the last book, the protagonists are on their final quest to kill God but God ends up dying weak and impotent on his own in the end.

The theology in Pullman's fantasy world, which is fairly clearly spelled out in the books is that the Christian God is an angel just like all other angels, but he came into being just before all other angels did and convinced the others that he created them. Then some of the other angels doubted that story and rebelled. The protagonists of the book join in the rebellion and make war against God and Elisha/Metatron.

The books are very anti-Christian and anti-religion both generally and specifially. The protagonists make use of many shamanistic and occult practices.

I did hear that the movie was going to be very sanitized compared to the books, but as I have not seen the movie, I cannot comment on that.

Pullman is a very gifted author, but also a very God dishonoring author.

-jolly

[Thursday Next]

I was reading some reviews of his books online at amazon and I saw that some atheists notice that he has a personal axe to grind.

[Kait]

Ok...I didn't really read any of this thread...I just thought I would put in my little bit here...

I recently bought the books, and I am almost all the way through the first one-

1.) They are AWESOME books...very well written, incredibly engaging, I can't put the thing down! It is VERY interesting, and a great storyline. I personally am finding them to be great books, and Pullman is a gifted writer. I would almost go so far as to say that I am enjoying them more than the CoN.

2.) I know Phillip Pullman had a personal axe to grind and these books were supposedly written to counter C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia. But for me...that doesn't really matter.

IMO, everyone on this earth is entitled to his/her own opinion and can write all the books they want against any religion/person. It doesn't change what I believe. I'm not going to become an atheist by reading these books, and frankly, I think all of the symbolism and such will go right over the heads of children.

So far...I see absolutely no evidence that these are atheist books, just by reading them. (granted, I have only read the first one so far) But really...I don't think a 12 year old reading this book is going to realize the meaning behind the books. (again...my opinion might change after I get through the other two)

Anyways...my 2 cents for what it's worth (or what it's not worth as the case may be )

[Aslan]

I looked up these books and look what I found:

"I've been surprised by how little criticism I've got. Harry Potter's been taking all the flak… Meanwhile, I've been flying under the radar, saying things that are far more subversive than anything poor old Harry has said. My books are about killing God."- Philip Pullman

He also has alot of hate for C.S. Lewis's work and claims that CON is "blatantly racist", "monumentally disparaging of women", "immoral", and "evil"

[darcie]

IMO, everyone on this earth is entitled to his/her own opinion and can write all the books they want against any religion/person. It doesn't change what I believe. I'm not going to become an atheist by reading these books, and frankly, I think all of the symbolism and such will go right over the heads of children.

So far...I see absolutely no evidence that these are atheist books, just by reading them. (granted, I have only read the first one so far) But really...I don't think a 12 year old reading this book is going to realize the meaning behind the books. (again...my opinion might change after I get through the other two)

I totally agree, and would definitely form my own opinion before completely writing them off. I started this topic because of an email I received, and I knew people here would be interested.

I've read that the first book in the series is the most vague as far as being atheist. It's not until the third book that the children try to defeat the cruel and vengeful god of the story. (But again, this is all summaries I've read rather than the book itself.) But you may be right about kids not getting the meaning that the author has inserted into the story. I recall reading the Narnia books as a kid (well, some of them), and I did not get all of the references that I have gotten from reading them as an adult. It is interesting, however, that the author in this case specifically states that the books are meant to be anti-religion and that they are not being targeted to the extreme that others are.

As far as Narnia books being racist and sexist, I take the way things are said as generational and cultural differences. It's not meant as derogatory.