Vatican blasts "Golden Compass" as Godless and hopeless

Pretty sure the world would be a better place without god and other religious figures, why complain about it?

</atheist rant>

 

Pretty sure the world wouldn't be a place without God. Then you wouldn't be able to complain about him.

</Christian rant>

 

Start rant

um........... this is coming from a..... consortium of peoples(vatican) ruled by the magisterium which while originally i presume is derived from the magi or wisemen of biblical times, which specifically refers to a certain sect of priests, has become through the centuries synonymous with magicians and devil worshippers???????? I mean....... salem witch trials..... magicians are in essence male witches...... and all of the above....... whatever.......... more political bs........ if they want dedication to their religion, mormon males have a 2 year mission after highschool graduation, and almost all of them do it........ when i say almost all, I mean, while there has been no studies on the percentage, 95ish percent? anyway....... Ill end this little rant here

End Rant

just my 2 bits

 

Rants are generally more effective if you actually know something about the subject addressed within your rant.

 

well for the simple fact that I doubt theres any documents left in the world other than in the vaticans hands about the creation of the original magisterium, unless you know something about it? but nevertheless.... that does not invalidate my arguement either

 

Interesting read I just stumbled upon (while searching "Magisterium"): http://tmatt.gospelcom.net/column/2007/11/14/ (<- contains spoilers)

 

Er. Yeah.

Tyinsar: It seems to me that Pullman does have some axes to grind with religion, but that doesn't automatically mean he has an issue with God. On the contrary: perhaps he is not killing God, just authoritarian hierarchical religion's idea of God as a ruler. The God that is killed off is an impostor. The true God is elsewhere (or everywhere): Pullman mentions Dust, a life force that pervades the universe, is associated with love and growth. Dust loves life, as one of the characters concludes. That is God.

 

Yes, you're right Nexxo. dust is god

 

OMG! I just emptied god out of the dustpan!

 

Heh, this even made it to Snopes: (link)

While looking up info on The Golden Compass I found an article discussing the theory you mentioned: (source)

Grinding axes against bad religion I can tolerate (God knows there's too much of that out there) however Pullman's work seems to be more than that: It's a direct attack on the God of Christianity (though his versions of both are nothing more than straw men he's set up himself)

 

Sorry for the double post but I also found what I would call a fairly decent and well reasoned response that I even feel comfortable calling a decent "Christian" response here: (link)

Here's a list of the questions he's answered and I'm sure some of those answers will shock some of you:

 

I would say that he isn't attacking the God of Christianity, but rather what has been done in the name of God throughout history. I got from the book that God and the Church in the trilogy was an incarnation of all the negative aspects of Christianity and religion in general. None of the positive aspects of religion were shown. I'd say what he was doing was exactly grinding axes against bad religion, by making the church in the books take on only the negative aspects of religion, rather then having any sort of good force, such as a Jesus figure to be a positive force for religion.

 

From the link in my post just before yours (It's a bit long but it's a really good article. I honestly can't recommend it strongly enough. (I'm not Roman Catholic but I even wish the Vatican would read it.)) (link)

The "Q)" & "A)" are my additions for clarity:

and:

("Yahweh" comes from Hebrew and is also a name Christians apply only to their God. (It has also previously been translated as "Jehovah"))

From those and other parts (including quotes from Pullman himself) we see that Pullman's intent was not to attack religion gone wrong (as you suggest) but to attack Christianity and God.

Edit: Also:
From Snopes: (link) (also linked above)

 

Well, I suppose that was what he intended them to be mean, but as with any great literary works, everyone comes out of it having picked up on something different. Perhaps I was too young to get the full blast of anti-Christianity from it when I was 13, but to be honest I didn't really consider it a problem. I picked up more on him decrying the negative aspects while reading it, but not as him saying that all of Christianity is wrong. Perhaps I missed something, but that is just my personal interpretation after reading the series.

To be quite honest, I think they are great works of literature, and if he meant to undermine religion, good for him, he's entitled to write what he wants. Some authors want to build up religion, others tear at it. As long as either author is writing enjoyable stories, I'll read them.

 

I'm 20 and I just read it for the first time. I have to say that I agree with your original opinon, I didn't really think it was an attack on Christianity, more of an attack on the negative aspects of Christianity.

In fact, I agree with your entire post. +1

If it's a good book, I'll read it.

 

I don't buy into this idea that every source of entertainment and musing that we consume must reflect our world views. I don't see why a Christian can't read Pullman's books, say "Yeah, there's an anti-christian subtext, but they're enjoyable stories, and I know he's wrong anyway." Surely people who are secure in their beliefs would welcome a test of their faith?
That, to me, is what sets the vatican in the wrong here. They may have a valid claim (that he axes Christianity) but they're not trying to enlighten and inspire discussion - they're boycotting free speech, trying - as usual - to beat down opposing points of view and censor their critics. And that's a disgraceful way for spiritual leaders to act, i.m.o.

 

Yaweh means: "That which is". Pretty good description of Dust.

Boiled_elephant makes a very good point: the Vatican disagrees with Pullman's view/message contained in his books and the film. Fair enough. But rather than encouraging dialogue and discussion, it encourages boycott and censorship. You know a person's true beliefs by how he defends them...

 

From the original story I see that "... some Catholic groups in the United States have called for a boycott ..." and that "The U.S.-based Catholic League, a conservative group, has urged Christians not to see the movie, saying that its objective was "to bash Christianity and promote atheism" to children...". Did the Vatican actually officially call for a boycott? From what I read SOME Catholic groups did (maybe even a few people in the Vatican) - but not all. Some others simply urged their followers not to see it.

If church members were urged not to see it to "keep their minds closed" (As some may argue) then I have to agree that it is a bad thing. - However, if church members were urged not to see it so that they would not be supporting Pullman's attacks (by paying to see the movie) I see nothing wrong with it - especially since Pullman has already declared himself to be attacking God and Christian churches.

Sorry to repeat this once again but I honestly can't recommend this article (what I view as a proper Christian response) strongly enough: (link)

 

Read the article, and I largely agree with the writer on how the whole argument should be approached, although I do not necessarily agree with some of his conclusions. Especially the "Oh, he's just a bitter and misguided poor lost soul". However much you disagree with it, couldn't his opinion be as objective and rational as yours?

I'm not at all sure that the books suggest that we just do whatever we feel like. The books seem to say that people should learn to think for themselves and take responsibility for their own actions rather than to hand over to Big Daddy like brainless sheep. We have the capability to be a bunch of (fairly) rational, intelligent adults after all. Unless you consider people fundamentally flawed, in which case you may want to ask God why He created such a wonky product.

If we stay with the belief that God exists for a second, and that He created humans, then He created free will. What's the point of doing that if we are supposed to hand it back over to Him? Oh, hang on, because obedience to God is supposed to be a choice, right? Some choice --we all know where we supposedly end up if we don't... I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. Where's the logic? You raise your kids to be independent, informed, sensible adults capable of making their own good choices and taking responsibility for them. Although of course you hope to teach them how to do that, in the end the idea is that they learn to stand on their own two feet, not phone home every Sunday for you to tell them what to do next for the rest of their lives.

And anyway, wasn't Christ a bit of a rebel against established church authority and dogmatic religion?

 

That's a fairly major piece of evidence for Darwinian evolution - so many bits of life engineering have gone down the "wrong road" with no hope of return to a road towards perfection (without divine intervention ). The human eye is a good example - the light sensors are the wrong way round, light has to shine through a forest of nerves and the brain make sense of the result. The octopus got it better engineered. Perhaps they're the chosen ones.

My main grouse about Putnam is that he's a lousy writer, his style is boring. I read the first two and skipped to the end of the last one. Deserves burning.