The Golden Compus

[JCSx2]

Typhoon,

Boycotting the Movie and Books is a far cry from censoring.

I am sure you have things that you feel strongly against and you do not purchase or pay for usage of a product. You may also tell your friends that buying that product is bad for whatever reason.

As an American I hope censoring on a federal level will not become an issue. But for Christians who want to protect the everlasting spirits of their children..... They have the right to do so.

If you enjoy it then you enjoy it, the author has stated he wrote the books to make atheism more of an option /pull children away from Christianity.

I feel your present here is good for conversation, BUT we will not change our views on anything that is considered an enemy of the cross. I am not speaking for everyone; I am sure Christians here and elsewhere will see the movie.

You say the books are brilliantly written, I am sure they are, too bad they are not better for Christian children in content or meaning.

You are not a Christian, but believe in a god? I will pray that the Holy Spirit will take charge of your life and welcome you in to Heaven.

Have you ever read the New Testament? If not give it a shot.

As for intelligent conversation without bashing I hope you keep sticking around.

Jim

[FFC]

It's a shame that all this hype will make many want to see the movie just to see what all the fuss is about.

[Judah]

On the other hand... why not read them (or see the movie) with the express purpose of developing your own apologia in countering their content? If you do not want to spend your money on the books, then borrow them if you can. Isn't it better to be able to discuss the content from the position of having read them, therefore knowing first-hand what you are talking about, when entering a discussion of them with a non-believer? You raise your credibility if you do so. Otherwise you get to be seen as just another extreme medieval Christian who is too out-of-this-world to know what you are talking about, and you rob yourself of the opportunity to discuss the material from first-hand knowledge and relating your argument more authoritatively to Christian concepts.

[FFC]

On the other hand... why not read them (or see the movie) with the express purpose of developing your own apologia in countering their content? If you do not want to spend your money on the books, then borrow them if you can. Isn't it better to be able to discuss the content from the position of having read them, therefore knowing first-hand what you are talking about, when entering a discussion of them with a non-believer? You raise your credibility if you do so. Otherwise you get to be seen as just another extreme medieval Christian who is too out-of-this-world to know what you are talking about, and you rob yourself of the opportunity to discuss the material from first-hand knowledge and relating your argument more authoritatively to Christian concepts.

Well, yes, there is that too. Discussing things intelligently is always a plus. I think I will read the books.

[Gman]

Well, yes, there is that too. Discussing things intelligently is always a plus. I think I will read the books.

Hey now... Points will be deducted.

[zoegirl]

I do not doubt reqding the books wouod be good, but I don't like the fact that the movie is not a ans accurate reflection of the books and really don't like the author's attitiude. ANd for that, I really object to feeding the atheist machine.

I also object to the marketing of children, especially when the movie is a watered down version and so entices the children to read the books and misleads the parents into letting the children read them before they understand what they are about. At least in the NArnia movie, there was no doubt about the symbolism.

However, that being said, yes, It would be good to read the books. Especially adults and mature children.

[FFC]

Well, yes, there is that too. Discussing things intelligently is always a plus. I think I will read the books.

Hey now... Points will be deducted.

Yes, and give them to Judah for making me see the error of my ways Look, Judah, they have a cheeky emoticon.

[Gman]

Yes, and give them to Judah for making me see the error of my ways Look, Judah, they have a cheeky emoticon.

Hmmm, come to think of it, I did see some of her points go up a bit....

[Cross.eyed]

Who has officially announced a boycott? !?!?

I announced my view and one other person has. Nobody here is calling for a boycott. I personally feel that we shouldn't support him financially and if others agree, great. And nobody is calling for censorship on this website. On the other hand, why should we as Christian go see a movie or read a book from someone who admittedly, aggressively, attacks our beliefs? It's not as if he is even remotely friendly towards our beliefs, or WILLING to say that CHristianity is a valid belief. Quite honestly, the author himself is the one who wants to wipe out religion and kill God. He would be completely content with his books influencing the minds of children towards atheism. And while he has the right to do this and no one is calling for censorship of his books, we also have the right to not support him. Interestingly enough, couldn't you consier his books brainwashing? He admittedly seeks to brainwash children an lead them to reject God.

Why are you not a big fan of the Narnia books?

I have read about this and it seems the author does have an atheistic agenda. I won't support him

[Judah]

Yes FFC, when I see that cheeky emoticon, I naturally think of you.

There is another review to be found here on the Christian Today website.

Also, some "discussion starters" for those who might want to talk about it:

1. When Lyra tries to "read" the alethiometer, Farder Coram tells her, "You mustn't grasp at the answer. You must hold the question in your mind, but lightly, like it was something alive." Is this principle applicable in our own lives? How does it compare to, say, the way we pray or seek guidance from God? What does it mean for a question to be "alive"? Is the answer "alive"?

2. What is the nature of "authority" within the Church? What role, if any, is there for pastors, elders, deacons, priests, bishops, etc.? How is the nature of leadership described in, say, the Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy, Titus)? What should we do when leaders overstep their bounds? How can we know when they have done this?

3. What is the relationship between God's authority and that of his followers? Why does Lord Asriel oppose the "Authority"—that is, the God—of his world? Many people in our world say they are spiritual or believe in God but they do not believe in organized religion or the Church; does anyone in the film believe in the "Authority" but not in the "Magisterium"? Would it make any sense for them to do so?

4. How does Lyra "master" her fear? How does Iorek model courage for her? How does she model it for him? Who has modeled courage in your life?

5. The leaders of the Magisterium say they are doing harmful things to children and others "for their own good." Does the film really give you the impression that they believe this? Would it be more effective if it did or didn't? When have you done things for someone else's good that might not have been so good after all?

An interesting comment for Christians regarding this movie is found here

...{clip}... Should Christians be afraid of The Golden Compass?

Mercy, no. Let's not be afraid. Discerning, yes. But not afraid.

God is not threatened by Philip Pullman. And people who stop to think through Pullman's story, and how he "refutes" Christianity, will see what a feeble "attack" against Christian beliefit really is.

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.)

It's interesting to note that Pullman's dismissal of Christianity skips over one little detail: Jesus. Pullman's story never makes any attempt to explore or refute the claims and ministry and person of Christ. He has, in effect, set up a "straw God" rather than a "straw man," and his fans are congratulating him for knocking down Pullman's flawed perception of God rather than the God of Christianity. He's not really undermining Christian belief as he thinks he is; he is undermining the abuse of authority, something altogether contrary to the gospel.

Read the rest of this comment

There is also an interesting comparison with C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia here.

...{clip}... The story begins with a girl hiding in a wardrobe. It continues with a series of adventures in which the girl passes through gateways into other worlds, meeting witches, figures from ancient mythology, and talking animals along the way. Ultimately, it takes her into the afterlife and to an apocalyptic battle between supernatural powers.

Philip Pullman's trilogy, His Dark Materials, has some striking parallels to C.S. Lewis's The Chronicles of Narnia. Between protective beasts, snowy landscapes, and references to a prophecy only the girl may be able to fulfill, the ads for The Golden Compass—the first installment of Pullman's series coming to the big screen on December 7—look made to attract fans of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. New Line Cinema has also gone out of its way to link the new film to J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, which the studio also adapted.

But His Dark Materials presents a strikingly different kind of tale from the ones told by Lewis and Tolkien; on a certain level, it even opposes them. Pullman, writing in The Guardian on the occasion of Lewis's centenary in 1998, said the Narnia books are "one of the most ugly and poisonous things I have ever read," with "no shortage of … nauseating drivel." Peter Hitchens, writing in The Spectator in 2003, named Pullman "the Anti-Lewis."

Read the rest of this article.

Right, that should keep you all busy for now.