AmericanPapist Comments
Thomas, this is like the 'da Vinci' Code. It will do very well in places like India. The 'da Vinci' code book is still in the top five books there.
I'd like to make a couple of predictions if I might.
1. A number of individuals may walk away from this with a favorable impression of the Catholic Church. Lots of us religious types have been visiting secular movie blogs and sites and dropping comments. The majority of the Catholic comments I've read have been charitable and reasoned no matter the sometimes vicious response of the non-religious.
2. On the flip side, if the media finds this story interesting enough to report it, it will likely be portrayed as a triumph by that old boogeyman "fundamentalism". Sigh.
Perhaps three things caused a very poor opening weekend:
1. Many Christians of different flavors did not want to see the movie.
2. A fair number of secular types did not like the toning down of the anti-Catholic, anti-Christian themes from the book and did not go.
3. The movie is just not that entertaining.
I can always depend on this blog to have the lastest info. It is the only blog that is giving reports this morning about the box office numbers on the "Golden Compass" Thank you.
I read/post at a James Bond movie site called commanderbond.net. In the forums I've been unabashedly taking the fight to this movie and its fans.
I cannot wait to dance on The Golden Compass' grave while the enraged bigots look on.
Thanks Maria, I try.
I'm in the Detroit airport, watching CNN (I think it was) and their guy trashed it. "Don't stay away because of the religious controversy, stay away cuz it's a bad film." Tee hee, tee hee.
I had to walk out of mass this morning because the priest started out by trashing the doctirnes and dogmas of the Catholic Church. We don't need them he said. They cause division. All we need is the golden rule. He went on fervently scolding us for thinking we had any more truth than anyone else. "There are many ways to God," he said. I began thinking about saying, "But Father, Jesus said He did not come to bring peace but a sword." Then he started in on the all the controversy about the Golden Compass. "Go see it. Take what is good out of it." A friend spoke out and said, "Then do you want us to go and see the Golden Compass? Even though it is about killing God?"
He then backpedaled. And when he finished his homily, to applause, my friend and I left and a bit later two teens and a man also left.
The USCCB bureaucracy does not speak for rank and file catholics. That is the lesson to be learned from this film's drab performance.
There was some talk that if this movie bombed, it would sink New Line cinema. Any confirmation?
Anyone but me old enough to remember the controversy around The Last Temptation of Christ? After all the sound and fury, it was just a boring movie. Sounds like the same here.
Ken, I remember, and you're right.
Given his dislike for C.S.Lewis, it must be a bitter pill for Mr. Pullman seeing "Prince Caspian" released and the movie on based on his book going down in flames.
What is the Catholic equivalent of the Lambeau Leap and could I do it and still be considered charitable?
A lot of times when movies flop, marketing kicks into overdrive and tries to repackage the film. This happened with the original Fantastic Four movie which was marketed as a "family-friendly" funny movie.
I can already see the marketing geniuses at New Line:
In 1995, Phillip Pullman wrote a book about killing God.
In 2007, God is trying to kill the movie based on his book.
Don't let God kill Pullman's movie.
Go pay money to see The Golden Compass.
That should bring in the die-hard atheists.
Golden Compass may have bombed at $27 million on the opening weekend, but it was enough to come in at #1. Now wait for advertising this week that the Golden Compass is the #1 movie in America.
That will give it a little bump, but hopefully it will die a swift death before Christmas.
Pam: I think when priests have become corrupt and stupid enough to say things like this from the pulpit, there is only one realistic course of action: They need to be taken out an shot. But, since most people are too squeamish for that, I think their names should be published. Every priest should expect to be fully, personally, publicly accountable for every word he says from the pulpit. Plenty of orthodox priests take heat for preaching the truth. Unorthodox, stupid priests should be held accountable for their abuse of the pulpit.
wow, why all the hate? I've been through Catholic school from K-12. I randomly found The Golden Compass in my high school library and thought it an awesome, imaginative story. In my young, Catholic mind it never crossed my mind to think that it was bashing the Church (probably because I was too busy enjoying the adventure Pullman created from his words!). I feel people need to calm down and realize that one novel will NOT undermine someone's longstanding faith. Also, kids aren't stupid!! There's no indoctrinating going on. You all should know that kids will always look back to their family and community for the real foundation of their beliefs. Why all the brouhaha over a story? People who take this book personally need to step back and stop sounding so hateful. and laughing about the apparently not so successful opening of the movie just seems so childish and silly. act like grown-ups people! Jesus loves everyone right? Practice what you believe in. =)
The book is offisive to Catholics that know a lick about their faith! It says that God and the Catholic Church are resonsible for all of the sadness in the world because they keep people from enjoying true freedom. Now there is a film based on the book. Imagine if a film came out about how great Hittler was for getting rid of Jews who spoil everyones fun by eliciting conscience! Or about any other religion! There would be outrage. But, when it is Catholics, we are the evil ones when we don't accept bigotry! We are the bigots?
After skimming through your other posts (this is my first time on here), I could not help but notice you have not even read the books. How can you be a critic of something you haven't even experienced first-hand? If you are to support your argument, wouldn't it be in good reason to research thoroughly the very thing you are blasting? Wouldn't your words hold more strength? I am assuming you are well-educated so what I am saying should make sense, right?
Blake Helgoth: have you read the books? Please say you do so that you can show me the sections where the book explicitly says that about our Catholic Church...
and also, if Catholics really ARE being slapped in the face by The Golden Compass.... tell me, aren't we supposed to "turn the other cheek"?
This is a fantasy book. No need to hate.
Best news I've heard all week. I was listening to a radio show on Friday, and the DJs giving movie reviews said that the film was difficult to follow. One of them questioned whether the ads should actually say that Nicole Kidman/Daniel Craig "star" in the film, since their screen time is minimal. The only good quality of it that they mentioned was the computer animation. Not a single mention of the religious controversy, but they recommended not to waste our money on it. So glad to hear that it's just a terrible movie all around.
A.C.,
Did you read the other two books? From what I understand (admittedly, I have not read any of them either) the anti-Christian and anti-Catholic themes are much more developed and blatant, up to the point where in the third book, God (portrayed as a senile mortal) is killed and the world is saved by way of an act of fornication.
The first book is more subtle; it is the 'hook' that is used to encourage the reading of the other two books. That is why its failure as a movie is so important.
You say "not to engage in schadenfreude" and then you engage in schadenfreude. That's like saying "not to be racist" and then calling someone the n word. I liked the movie by the way.
Greetings.
A (non religious) colleague of mine went to see GC last night, and had nothing good to say. It was so bad that he left halfway through.
A couple of points:
-- I don't have to read the books or see the film. Men and women whose opinion I trust have read the trilogy and tell me it's bad news. I haven't read the Satanic Bible either. Would you, A.C., suggest that I have no logical right to suggest that parents not allow their children to read it?
-- Since you have read the books, do they not refer to the "Magisterium?" That's a rather particularly Catholic term. Do you think they are referring to the Buddhists?
-- We have to take into account what the author himself said about the book. He's an unabashed atheist, and He does think the Church is responsible for most of the evil in the world -- you know, the usual atheist tripe "most wars were caused by religion" and so on.
-- I am not going to get too exited now. Sometimes these films manage to rebound. Let's pray.
A.C.
Is that the initials for Anonymous Coward? Just asking.
You are big on throwing around the word "hate". Who here used that word?
In the words of Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
I am just saying, why get all up in arms over a BOOK. It is a BOOK. A STORY. We have a huge Church institution. We have communities we belong to that support our fundamental beliefs. We gather our strength in our beliefs from our close loved ones. A story should not offend us! I don't care if the movie was a flop for some, it's the fact that people already had a strong hate for it from the very beginning. Hate hate hate is rampant in here. Catholics hating on someone who is different. Again, aren't we supposed to be merciful even to those who persecute us? Sheesh, seems like if some people had the chance to do whatever they wanted with this author, they'd burn him at the stake.. =/ Is that what Jesus would do?
This doesn't give Catholicism a favorable view. Stop simpering and whining about it and then laughing at others' unsuccessful endeavors.... there are bigger issues in the world to be offended by. Is this kind of "You're wrong and I'm right!!!" behavior what we have resorted to doing?
Excuse me? Why are you calling me a coward? You are resorting to name-calling now?
And Patrick, to your "I haven't read the Satanic Bible either." Why are you comparing this fiction book to a satanic bible? I cannot believe this book is so feared... people need to chill out.
Not sure if my comment got through- to summarize, I read all three books when they first came out and found the science fiction concepts quite imaginative but a coldness and sneeriness hangs over the tale- I think this is what is disturbing about the books and make them unsuitable for children- the tone of cold black hatred for everyone and everything. The children are pawns and not real. Now that I know a bit more about atheism and have watched Hitchen and Pullman in interviews, I think the books reflect their tone.
mexigogue: I don't think I was engaging in schadenfreude. I'm honestly confused. am I being seen as someone relishing in the troubles of other people? I'm pretty sure I'm not... =/ please enlighten me.
and people, I'm not trying to make enemies on here. I am a fellow Catholic myself. I am just saying that all this reaction to this book seems a bit too much. We really shouldn't be intimidated by it.... our faith still lives on.
i luv this line from AC: "How can you be a critic of something you haven't even experienced first-hand?"
Gee, I wonder. I've never been mugged, but I have pretty low opinion of muggers.
let me define what I was saying about that. This is a piece of literature. When writing about anything, you can't just base your findings off of what others say. You can't write a whole entire college paper on a book you haven't even read. Those who have gone through academia should know this very well.
AC, don't be silly, and don't shift assumptions based on whatever point you are trying to make at the time. Have you ever read Mein Kampf? If not, can you reach a conclusion about it's message? I would hope so.
No one here is "writing a college paper." If you've been thru academe, you should recognize that. The vast majority of things we know about the world, we know through others. We can and do reach conclusions about the world based on information from others all the time. And there's nuthin wrong with that.
If you want to say that at some point, certain folks need to visit materials first-hand, fine, do so. But don't trot out the old "have you ever read/tried/expereinced whatever" as if the failure to have done so automatically renders one's opinion thereon worthless.
But by limiting yourself to what others think, is that correct as well? Do you pore over all movie reviews and when a movie gets bad reviews do you automatically go "oh, i'm not seeing it"?
This book is no Satan's book nor is it Mein Kampf that's for sure.. like I said before, I read this book a few years ago when I was in high school. I was a kid. it didn't harm my beliefs. Seriously, children have brains. Children aren't blind sheep. There really is no need to go "OMG this book is about EVILLL!!! BURN IT!" Do you not have any faith in your children to know what's fantasy and what's reality, what's good and what's evil??
and i wasn't shifting assumptions, I just didn't clarify my thoughts very well (I'm not perfect). When i was writing that, I was thinking in the criteria of literature since we are talking about a book. I wasn't likening it to every single experience in the world.
ok, AC, so what it boils down to is, when you like where the argument by extension goes, you accept it, and when you don't like where it goes, you avoid it. that's fine, as long as you can admit that's what you're doing here. (you might not recognize it, of course, in which case you'll either think about what i'm saying, and benefit bu it, or you wont and at least be no worse off)
ps: as for whether this book damaged your faith, etc., we'd need to know a lot more about what kind of faith you brought to it in the first place to know whether that line means anything to the rest of us.
cheery bye, and all that. edp.
"ps: as for whether this book damaged your faith, etc., we'd need to know a lot more about what kind of faith you brought to it in the first place to know whether that line means anything to the rest of us."
What are you trying to say? Are you implying my faith might not be as "good" as yours? What line are you speaking of and who has the power to define this line?
And for the first part of what you said.. thanks for telling me this. This makes sense... but I couldn't help but notice:
"ok, AC, so what it boils down to is, when you like where the argument by extension goes, you accept it, and when you don't like where it goes, you avoid it."
isn't this exactly what's going on with The Golden Compass? When you like where they argument is going, you accept it, and when you don't like where it goes, you avoid it?
Dear A.C.,
I have not read the series, so I am not going to comment on the contents of the books themselves.
As a Catholic and a Literature Major, however, I do take issue with the fact that you propose that a book, a story, cannot influence people negatively. The imagination is a very powerful thing. Poetry, paintings, novels, and films, by taking us into another world, affect and influence the way that we view our own world. Words are very powerful things. Certainly, they affect some people differently than others, but some people do not have strong families to influence their opinions of things, and so they take their opinions of the world from what they are bombarded with in the media all around them.
Yes, Christ loved everyone enough to die the most horrible death imaginable for us all. This didn't mean that he wasn't adverse to pulling out a whip, going ballistic, and driving the money-changers out of the temple or telling people that the wheat would be separated from the chaff and the chaff would be sent to the eternal fires. Loving people sometimes means being stern with them and telling them what's what.
I'm not advocating starting a riot. However, the word "Magisterium" for me evokes a maternal image of God not leaving you orphan but giving you a mother to help you learn how to live, tell you of the road to happiness, warn you of the pitfalls, and help pick you up when you fall anyway and get dirty. Tell me, does the word "Magisterium" still have that same power for you, or, after reading Pullman's books, does it have undertones of something dark and malicious and forced? Could someone who knows nothing of the Church, after reading these books and viewing this film, later encounter a Catholic speaking of the Magisterium and be open to it as something good, or would they have to "get over" a previous mental association with that word? Would any good Catholic, then, not want this mental association to be wide-spread among those ignorant of the Catholic Faith? Please, as a person who has read the books, give me your honest, open-minded opinion. Is that one example not enough to say that stories are powerful enough to influence a person's perception of the world?
AC.
You really are dealing in hyperbole...To criticize does not equal to hate. And yes, I reserve the right as a parent to judge whether or not my children should read something, especially a book that has been written by an author who has declared openly (in several interviews and articles) he is trying to destroy the faith of young people in God. So by taking him at his word, we are somehow dealing in hate? I think we are taking him at his word.
And sure, I'm sure my children or any other children can survive these books like any other poison.. But why expose them if I don't have to? I'm actually pretty sure my 2 older kids have read these books (I have 4, 21, 20, 14 and 1) and have survived, but that's only because the school assigned them before I knew about these books or had a chance to intervene. If I had known then what I know now, I would not have let those books into their grasp. I am not going to let my 14 yr old or 1 year old (when he's old enough) read them that is for sure.
Also, as you said you read it in high school...that's swell, and glad you dealt with it easily. You cannot be sure how this propaganda piece affected you. Judging by your thinking and defense of the is book, it certainly seems like it left you open to more relativist propaganda and dogma. To be successful, propaganda doesn't necessarily have to sell you completely, if it leaves the door open for more of the same, then its done its job. Sounds like it was pretty successful affecting your views without you realizing it.
Additional, Not all kids can tell the difference between reality or fantasy, many are lost, and if poorly catechized then more so. Heck, there are adults who can't tell the difference, hence the rise of wiccans and witches. Children do have brains, but not all have the same ability to make sound judgments.
Finally, why do I want to see a movie or a book that is 1) written by a rabid atheist 2) will financially benefit that rabid atheist and his allies 3) allow that atheist to have the ability to make more propaganda pieces like this to lead more people astray? I certainly don't need to waste my time nor money to do so.
I think what you're all missing here is that these are books about the value of liberty and power of authority figures to mislead. It says nothing about the teachings of Christ. In fact, the nihilistic conclusion of the story encourages the reader to treat this world as if there is no afterlife; to conduct oneself in the best interests of the people around you. What is more like Jesus, believing that your actions will net you a sweet reward in heaven, or believing that your actions should improve life or everyone?
The real outrage here isn't whether as a discerning adult you should go see the movie. My hope is that you don't but that's another matter. The USCCB's movie critic at large, Forbes, reviewed this movie and acclaimed its artistic excellence, a view not shared by many secular reviewers. That the USCCB is in the movie critic business is symptomatic of the USSCB's left leaning politics and its involvement in an array of political policy matters. Forbes is emblematic of the tip of the iceberg of what takes place at USCCB. His acclaim for Brokeback should have been an alarm to the bishops. If the USCCB wants to engage in this business, it is obligated to review movies with a Catholic perspective in morality, not a secular perspective in the art form. And, even then, the Catholic perspective of art and beauty is to elevate our spiritual awareness of God's creation, not man's self indulgence. The muted criticism of the USCCB is worrisome and the criticism of this trashy flick is misplaced.
P.S. As an American, I value freedom.
P.P.S. The version of God in these books isn't the same as the Christian God; the one in the books is more of an anti-christ, who fooled everyone into believing he was God, when the true creator [possibly the real God] went anonymous. The book doesn't deny God the creator or God the father, it denies God the authoritarian figure.
Bob,
I saw the movie, and it really wasn't very good, but it was exceptionally pretty. If something must be about elevating spiritual awareness of God in order to be art, then the vast majority of human endeavours must be scrapped. Art is, and always has been, an expression of emotional, visual, personal as well as spiritual matters.
And it wasn't a "trashy flick," it was just really rushed. If it hadn't been compressed into two hours though, no kid would have sat through it.
P.S. the job of a critic is to critique objectively. If a critic is not objective then they are just a demagogue. It is entirely possible for a critic to judge a movie that disagrees with their personal beliefs to be good or artistic. The church as portrayed in the film didn't really represent the real Church at all: since when is the Pope the absolute ruler of England?
My last point is that this is aimed at kids around 12-14, the stories are about coming of age. By the time most kids are that age, they're not going to lose faith from a movie or a book.
Crumbunist, i totally agree with you x_x
also, i understand what the last posts are talking about. I know you will be more protective over your kids because they are more impressionistic. I know that literature can and will affect you even if it's not very apparent. The thing is though, this book will not break our backs. we are also exposed to a plethora of other books that don't have these "atheist undertones." the truth of the matter is, we will all come across "good" things AND "bad" things. that's what life is. this one "bad" book will not cancel out every other book you've read. you can't cover your eyes to everything you don't believe in.
We ALL analyze info that we receive from our environment. if The Golden Compass truly is evil, our minds would be able to come to that conclusion and reject it. by reading it, are some of you afraid your life will be changed so profoundly?
"by reading it, are some of you afraid your life will be changed so profoundly?" Well it ruined my dream of writing the best children's novel in the world because it beat me to it :(
Crumbinist,
My last point is that this is aimed at kids around 12-14, the stories are about coming of age. By the time most kids are that age, they're not going to lose faith from a movie or a book.
That is exactly the point when many kids are the most impressionable. A story that places Christianity in an unfavorable light, that suggests that God is weak and would be better off not existing, and suggests that there is nothing wrong with fornication and who knows what other sorts of immorality (third book) would be most likely to find fertile ground in the minds of children that age.
Frankly, it sounds like there needs to be a certain degree of maturity in the reader that even some high schoolers lack before the potential for harm is eliminated.
A.C.,
this one "bad" book will not cancel out every other book you've read. you can't cover your eyes to everything you don't believe in.
We ALL analyze info that we receive from our environment. if The Golden Compass truly is evil, our minds would be able to come to that conclusion and reject it.
That does not justify encouraging the reading/watching of something that is known to be a likely bad influence. We are fallen creatures, that even when redeemed suffer the scars of concupiscence. We CANNOT always come to the conclusion that something is evil, even when it is; otherwise, we would never sin.
kids are impressionable from 12-14. and pretty darn smart, too. kids this age question everything naturally. at that age range, they definitely aren't blind sheep following every little thing they hear.
as for your last paragraph, i'm not encouraging people to read/watch something that is "known" to be a likely bad influence. i'm encouraging people to read this book because it's imaginative and a great adventure to the reader. =/
you know, i watched the movie and was so sad that i was automatically looking for all the "anti-Catholic" lines. it ruined it for me. i just wanted to enjoy the storyline!! =(
1) I already addressed the portrayal of God in this story. What appears in His Dark Materials is not the same as the Christian God, but a being that claimed to be God. It was weak and deserved death because it had dominated so many people for so long under the lie.
2) I have never bought into the idea that sex is inherently evil. The original sin of Adam and Eve was disobedience [eating the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis 2:8) when God told them not to (Genesis 2:17)], not sex.
3) Furthermore, I feel that many Catholics constrict themselves to very old moral rules and miss the spirit of the teachings of Christ. The papacy has not been without fault in this regard either; we are all human, we are all flawed, and we all hold false convictions.
4) Finally, if you cannot trust your children to think for themselves and arrive at their own conclusions about a book at the age of 11-14, then you have failed, as a parent, to teach them the critical thinking skills and social values that they need in order to cope with life on their own. I read these books when I was 13, and what I gained was a greater appreciation for life, not a depreciation of God.
If you applied these same critical thinking skills and read His Dark Materials, as well as the Bible, you will illuminate yourself as to their real messages and should follow those elements you feel are most right, and most consistent.
"you know, i watched the movie and was so sad that i was automatically looking for all the "anti-Catholic" lines. it ruined it for me. i just wanted to enjoy the storyline!! =("
"Why do you want to cut kids' Daemons away?"
"You see, a long time ago, our ancestors did something very bad, and we've been living with Dust ever since."
:D
A.C.,
The issues are still there. If I were giving a preteen/teen a "good imaginitive" story to read, I'd be giving them something of the calibur of LOTR, Narnia, Tolkein's Space Trilogy, or the like. There is plenty else out there that is not atheist-leaning.
For the simple reason that kids of that age DO question everything naturally, they need to be given good, moral resources to answer those questions.
Re Anti-Catholicism:
From the reports, it gets far worse in the second and third books. Have you read those as well?
Crumbunist,
Re 1: The author has stated his intended goal is to inhibit belief in God. Portraying God as being weak and mortal is part of this ploy.
Re 2: I never said that sex is inherently evil. I said that the evil lies in the fornication; the Bible clearly says that fornication is evil.
Re 3: The "old moral rules" are part of the Deposit of Faith. If the Pope cannot accurately interpret the "Spirit of the teachings of Christ," how can you or I? I'll stick to what the Church teaches.
Re 4: Some children are that discerning at 14, many are not. It is the parents' job to continue to form them through adulthood. (As an aside, the human brain finishes developing higher cognitive functions in the early 20s. Thus a 14 year old still needs plenty of guidance.)
Correction: Lewis's Space Trilogy, IIRC, not Tolkein's.
Re 1: The author's intent doesn't matter, a reader does not know the author's intent when they are reading.
Re 2: Can you explain the difference between sex and fornication? I honestly do not know it. Also, can you cite where the bible denounces fornication? Finally, is it from the Old or New Testament?
Re 3: God gave Man the gift of Reason. That is how you can read and interpret the Bible or yourself. Though the Pope has a special connection with God, he is still human, and past popes have made mistakes [remember the Renaissance]. Also remember that the path to God lies not with the Pope, but through Christ himself. The Pope is not unique: there have been many popes before him, and most were elected by flawed humans. Finally, remember the origin of the title Pontifex Maximus in the hierarchical Roman religion. I am not denouncing the Pope's authority as a theologian, I am asserting that the Pope is not the ultimate law on morality: He is a qualified authority on the subject, but only God and the individual can know what is best for themselves. Use God's gift and read the Bible.
Re 4: This is a very overprotective attitude towards parenting, I believe. Especially once they reach their teen years, kids need independence of thought in order to come to their own conclusions about things. Parents are there to ensure their childrens' safety and well-being. Parental duty does not include controlling thought. If my child chooses to convert to Judaism [willfully, not through some ludicrous cult brainwashing scenario] then I would talk to them, try to understand their decision, and ultimately let them live their life, their way.
And yeah, the human brain finishes developing around 21, but that doesn't mean you should or even CAN control your growing child's new sense of conscience or morality.
lol Crumbunist, your smileys are refreshing :P and I like this:
"If you applied these same critical thinking skills and read His Dark Materials, as well as the Bible, you will illuminate yourself as to their real messages and should follow those elements you feel are most right, and most consistent."
and GCC Catholic:
I did read the 2nd and 3rd book but I don't quite remember them too well, sorry. I haven't read the last two in a long time. All I remember is that I enjoyed it.
And how about addressing this issue: you can say it's bad all you want and you can tell a child not to read it, but what if a child does read it? I found the books in the library and started reading it on my own. You can't always control what a child is exposed to. The thing is, reading the book shouldn't be too bad of an issue, because if you disagree with it. You can go ahead and educate your child, setting it as an example. It can be a very enriching experience if you want it to.
"And how about addressing this issue: you can say it's bad all you want and you can tell a child not to read it, but what if a child does read it? I found the books in the library and started reading it on my own. You can't always control what a child is exposed to. The thing is, reading the book shouldn't be too bad of an issue, because if you disagree with it. You can go ahead and educate your child, setting it as an example. It can be a very enriching experience if you want it to."
Exactly. Everyone should be teaching their children critical thinking skills and open-mindedness. Especially in this ever-adapting century, those are skills they need. You can't shelter your children from things you do not like: instead you should be teaching them how to cope with those things in a manner that allows them to analyze, understand and judge for themselves what is worthwhile and what is not. If they decide after all that Catholicism is right for them, then good for them. If they decide that another form of Christianity is best, then good for them. If they decide on Islam or Judaism or Buddhism or any other religion, or even atheism, then good for them. In the end, what matters is that they live a life in respect of others, a life lived in moderation, consistent moral choices, and happiness. After all, Jesus is infinitely forgiving: I have many atheist friends who acknowledge that Jesus was a great man and his teachings are noble, even though they disagree on His divinity and the concept of the afterlife. As a Christian, all that should matter are these things: the specifics are unimportant.
Crumbinist,
Re 1: You mean to say that the author's ideas are not reflected in his work? Why would he write something contrary to his own ideas?
Re 2: Fornication is sexual intercourse between unmarried persons. It is condemned implicitly in the Commandment against adultery and explicitly in the Letters of St. Paul in the New Testament. Why does it matter whether it is OT or NT.
Re 3: Reason only gets us so far, but we should use it to read Scripture IN CONFORMITY WITH THE TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH. When we interpret Scripture solely on our own (read: "become our own Pope"), we might come to a conclusion, but it could be drastically different than the conclusions of others and from the writers themselves (and thus be mutually exclusive -- all could be wrong, but all could not be right). The continual teaching of the Church provides the best opportunity to know what the true teaching is in conformity with the Deposit of Faith. Inprudent or immoral personal actions by past popes do not diminish authority to speak on matters of faith and morals.
Re 4: I do think it is a strong approach to parenting, but not an unreasonable one. Even when a child is thinking independently, guidance is needed. Cases where the child balks at it are usually where it is needed most. It is completely reasonable to guide a child into truth when he or she is heading into the direction of error. If you disagree with me, we will simply have to agree to disagree. Your perspective seems to lead to a theological relativism.
That is to say, all sects of Christianity are equally valid and have their own pros and cons. All religions, at their core, teach the same humanist philosophies: to live in altruistic harmony with one another. I do not fault my atheist friends for having no faith, because they have consistent philosophies and regard their fellow man with respect, dignity and charity.
A.C.,
If a child finds it on his own, one must hope that previous parental influence leads to proper thinking and decision-making.
Crumbunist,
"Open-mindedness" is not a virtue.
If they decide after all that Catholicism is right for them, then good for them. If they decide that another form of Christianity is best, then good for them. If they decide on Islam or Judaism or Buddhism or any other religion, or even atheism, then good for them. In the end, what matters is that they live a life in respect of others, a life lived in moderation, consistent moral choices, and happiness.
This is relativism; it is completely inconsistent with Apostolic Christianity, and even with historic Protestant Christianity. It is a modern error.
This will be my last post for the evening, as I must leave to do something else.
crumbunist--you miss my point by a country mile and so i apologize for my lack of clarity. you may defend whether this is trashy...i really don't care. I've read enough about Pullman to understand what is going on. Indeed, he is on record as saying that the anti-catholicism was downplayed in order to get viewers in the door and the sequels will be less nuanced. Thus, i'm really talking about a culture war here and you're discussing the movie's cinematic and theatrical qualities, an entirely different matter. Moreover, your understanding of beauty is modernistic and so you can tell me how beautiful you think the movie is...again i really don't care. The purpose of any USSCB analysis however should be different, and thus, your observation, though exaggerated, regarding the condition of human art and what it serves is absolutely correct. But, then i may have been too hard on myself at the outset of this response for it seems that you are making the point i attempted to make; the response to the USCCB's "review" is muted and indeed appears justified by you. So i say again the USCCB has no business offering secular reviews for the likes of this movie or brokeback from any perspective but the Catholic perspective and theological understanding of truth and beauty.
Re 1: His ideas are reflected in his writings, but the books are not as explicit as his one-line summary of them. "These books are about killing god," well, yeah, but they're about other things too, which you would know if you read them analytically. "I want to kill the idea of God in children" is a personal view that does not come across in the books--they do not read as propaganda.
Re 2: http://www.biblegateway.com/pass...34;&version=31;
These are the words of God labeled Commandments in the Bible.
Re 3: I do not argue that the Pope should not be considered, as he is an authority on theological matters. The relationship with God is through Jesus, and we all carry within us a spark of the divine known as the soul. I am not arguing with you that people should read the Bible solely on their own: their personal reading of the Bible must be informed by other sources as well. The best way to understand most things is to view them from many different perspectives.
Re 4: I agree with you here, but I believe I disagree on the degree of guidance. I do not believe it is a parent's duty to set a child's faith in place: as I have pointed out, the relationship with God is through Jesus and through one's own faith. If you try to force your child into a specific faith, then their faith will not be as strong as if they had chosen for themselves. I support theological relativism in the sense that I believe all religions have different methods, rites and practices based around the same philosophy, the same Word of God. What is important is adherence to that underlying philosophy that was taught to humanity by so many prophets, martyrs and theologians.
This underlying, altruistic, humanist philosophy is what God wants us to adhere to, and it is not necessarily inconsistent with secular humanism or atheism. Jesus is all-forgiving, and by following His example one will lead a virtuous life in consistency with the underlying philosophy.
Crumbunist,
No wonder you do not understand what the fuss is about: you are one of those cheering for the overthrow of the Magisterium!
Lauren, "Magisterium" does not = Catholic Church if that's what you're implying.... the Magisterium is just the evil institution that is created in The Golden Compass. Why do people keep forcing that idea. Must one always create arguments?
Just because someone is "cheering on" the fall of an evil entity in a book, are you saying they automatically apply this fiction into their reality? I certainly hope not.....
No, the Magisterium is the teaching arm of the Catholic Church. The Magisterium is the authority that Catholics turn to for an authentic interpretation of the Word of God in the Scriptures Tradition. It comes from the Latin word "magister," meaning "teacher." This is what the word "Magisterium" has almost exclusively referred to for a couple of centuries now.
From what other people have told me, and from what your arguments, A.C. and Crumbunist, point to is that the Pullman series rejoices over the destruction of an authoritarian entity named the Magisterium that has been controlling people's minds and ideas.
I am afraid that many people already think that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church controls (or tries to control) the minds of many people, without a book or movie coming along that uses an equivocation of terms!
Authority is not a bad thing. Bad authority is a bad thing. This is a subtle difference that is hard for people who are only used to bad authority to grasp.
Authority isn;t only defined by words like "good" and "bad", though. Pullman and myself would argue that authority can be incorrect or stifling. I believe that the only way for any individual to truly understand something is through personal insight. I do not assert that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is "evil," nor that people cannot refer to its teachings in order to further their own understanding. Should you take the words of a university professor at face value? A person in a position of authority is not always correct, and believing that they are can only stifle truth.
Also the Magisterium in Golden Compass is a government body, not an educational one.
Unless that Authority has been granted by God himself. Then it is no longer a question of mere obedience, but a question of love.
Also, where does His Dark Materials explicitly advocate extramarital sex?
I found a pretty good article about this subject:
http://www.brandonsanderson.com/...-and-
Censorship
"the best way to promote your ideas is to argue for them in an intelligent, respectful way--as opposed to trying to stamp out the other person's ideas before others can hear them."
OK... a few points I feel are necessary to introduce here.
Crumbunist- You asked where Pullman explicitly states in the books a sentiment against Christianity. Doesn't a former nun, Mary Malone, state something alone the lines of "Christianity was just a very convincing mistake."? Not to mention that whether you and A.C. accept it or not, Pullman didn't create the word "Magisterium." It is a word for the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Not to mention "fra" is awful close to "father," in terms of a title for the individuals in the Magisterium.
A.C.- I think you need to be introduced to the idea of a piece of literature being used as a parable. G.K. Chesterton often made his novels as parables. He said that while a person may not understand the moral of the story immediately, the hope was that the seed of the idea would be planted and come to fruition at some point down the road. The fear here is that Pullman's novel may be a parable for the evil of God and and other sort of authority. (Authority is not always bad, especially when the instructions come from the One who made us.) The fear is that his novels may lead a child away from faith.
I should also point out that relativistic ideas of one faith being just as good as any other faith is not in keeping with Catholic theology. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Truth. Going to another faith is dismissing that Truth. Further, if one faith is just as good as any other, why be Catholic? I am Catholic because I believe that the Church is in connection with Truth itself and that no other path is quite as good.
May be off topic, and violate some arguing rule, but...
The best response I've heard to the "it's just fiction" argument is:
"So is pornography."
"I am Catholic because I believe that the Church is in connection with Truth itself and that no other path is quite as good."
That does not seem Christian-like at all. Didn't Jesus help the unwanted people in the society with an open heart, with no judgment on the way they lived? Why do that now? Don't you seem a bit cocky to be saying no other path is as good as yours?
Also, it is quite often that authors pull words from different cultures and times. Why take offense to him using that word? If I want, can't I make a children's book about a happy place which I happen to call "Magisterium," or is that not allowed either?
Andy,
was that really the best response you've heard? what else is fiction... Lord of the Rings, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Dr. Suess....
So:
The Baby Sitters Club.. it's just fiction.
"So is pornography"
:P
May be off topic, and violate some arguing rule, but...
The best response I've heard to the "it's just fiction" argument is:
"So is pornography."
I don't understand.
Manda,
The reason you choose one path over another is for its merits. Do you believe that a Lutheran is less a Christian because they do not belong to the Catholic Church? Is an Anglican less a Christian because they follow a different church structure than Catholics? Is Judaism invalid, even though the Jews are God's chosen people and have a Covenant with Him? Clearly somewhere along the line you have to admit that there can't be only one route to God, salvation or Christ.
I don't believe that the individual is less because many people have not been shown the full truth in regards to different faiths. Do I believe the Luteran Church is less than the Catholic Church? All P.C. responces aside, yes.
Christ is the one path to salvation, though I hope in my heart that many who have never known Him, through no fault of their own, will still find salvation through Him by following the best set of choices available to them.
As for Andy responce that pornagraphy is also fiction, I think he means that even if it is just fiction, it can still harm a person. That which we allow into our minds often has greater power than we give it credit for. I think it was Dr. Cuddeback who pointed this out in a lecture I heard last year. That is one of the reasons that I have begun to limit myself on which books I will allow myself to read.
AC,
Pullman's book ridicules and criticizes the Church.
Did he have to read the teachings of the Majesterium before he wrote his book?
If he is exempt from this requirement, why are we not?
Pullman's book criticizes the Church and Christianity in a very negative light -- as fraud that was only used to destroy adolescent sexuality.
Why aren't you writing an email to Pullman saying, "I have never seen such hate!"
Puh-lease!
You are a Catholic and that means you are a holy nerd! Stop trying to pretend that you can have your faith and the acceptance of your Catholic peers.
Stop being so ashamed of who you are!
Christ is the one path to salvation, though I hope in my heart that many who have never known Him, through no fault of their own, will still find salvation through Him by following the best set of choices available to them.
That's the thing though, the Catholic church may be the best path for yourself and millions of others, but it clearly is not for everyone, or else every Christian would be a Catholic. There are flaws in every human organization and church that attempts to interpret God's Word. The Pornocracy is the perfect example of the Catholic Church being a flawed, human organization. Likewise, the Anglican, Lutheran or Mormon churches may be best for others, but they too are all flawed human institutions. Different people have different physical, emotional, psychological and above all, spiritual needs that are best served by different interpretations of God's Word. The most important thing is that every major religion has, as its core, The Golden Rule: treat others as you yourself wish to be treated. If anything can be taken as universal truth, it is The Golden Rule: even atheist scientists, evolutionary psychologists, secular humanists and politicians agree on The Golden Rule. Every religion with this as its base contains the truth: it is on the specifics that they differ.
After all, doesn't God want us to live in accordance with His Word? and isn't God's Word the same thing as truth? Wouldn't this universal truth, the foundation of Jesus' teachings and religions around the world, be consistent with living according to God's Word? Isn't that why he sent the prophets to man?
Manda:
You hit it spot on.
Just because it is fiction does not remove the effect it has on us, our minds, our selves.
If it's hateful, hurtful material, it remains that, be it fiction, non-fiction, or whatnot.
As for Andy responce that pornagraphy is also fiction, I think he means that even if it is just fiction, it can still harm a person. That which we allow into our minds often has greater power than we give it credit for. I think it was Dr. Cuddeback who pointed this out in a lecture I heard last year. That is one of the reasons that I have begun to limit myself on which books I will allow myself to read.
I do not believe [most] pornography harms anyone. Before you ask, yes, I am quite liberal regarding sexuality. Sexuality is a natural part of human nature, and those who choose to restrain themselves and their behavior are entitled to do so, but so too are people entitled to express themselves sexually. King Solomon, I believe, had some several hundred wives. That said, I do not believe that thoughts, or concepts, or ideas can be inherently harmful. What is harmful is behavior. Whether or not pornography influences behavior [psychological evidence says it does, in the very short term] does not prevent oneself from restraining oneself from more animal urges. When sexuality becomes a sacrament, a rite, a form of worship in itself, then it becomes a problem or God and for society. Sexuality in moderation does not offend.
Furthermore, it is the responsibility of citizens in a democratic society to open themselves up to new and different ideas, in order to properly take part in democracy. You don't have to adopt those ideas: if they are incompatible with your own views and philosophy then they will not influence you. Books aren't like viruses, waiting to infect you with deviation.
Just because it is fiction does not remove the effect it has on us, our minds, our selves.
Why would you begin to believe in something you found despicable?
Lord, have mercy. This is a mess. Where to start?
I think what you're all missing here is that these are books about the value of liberty and power of authority figures to mislead. . . . What is more like Jesus, believing that your actions will net you a sweet reward in heaven, or believing that your actions should improve life or everyone?
For starters, this assertion reflects a particularly consequentialist view of morality. We are not bound to make life better for everyone, we are bound to do good and avoid evil. Good and evil cannot be reduced to Benthamist calculations of the doing the most for the largest group of people, and the view that they can is perhaps the most insidious error of modern times. The argument for why this reasoning is incoherent is lengthy, so I refer you to John Finnis's work on the noncomensurable nature of human and moral goods.
Second, it has been asserted above that the metaphysical underpinnings of Pullman's universe are not contrary to Catholic teaching. This is false. The claim that there is a tyrannical demigod who rules the universe, and that the real creative power is a form of mystical background radiation (that sounds an awfully lot like the Force, not that this is relevant), is quite simply, a lie. It is also a very old lie (cf, manichaism, Zoroastrianism, gnosticism, Arianism), and not at all compatible with the idea that there exists a distinct Divine Being that corresponds to the living God who has revealed Himself to us in space and time. It might be a lie that people don't believe, but to imply that it somehow doesn't contradict the Truth is simply risible.
It has also been asserted above that people here "hate" Philip Pullman. I cannot speak for everyone who posts here, but I think it rather unlikely. Since we're attaching moral significance to the word, let's be sure to use it properly. To hate another is to wish death and eternal damnation upon that person. One cannot hate, in this precise sense, anything other than a human, an angel, or (possibly, in some horrible way) God. What the folks round here have been asserting is that Pullman publicly holds erroneous beliefs and attempts to promote those beliefs through his literature, and thus that these books may be dangerous to the faith of impressionable children, and Catholics should perhaps think twice before helping a man profit by his misdeeds.
Third, judging by their statements, neither A.C. nor Crumbunist have children of the age described as being the primary audience of these books. Early teen and preteen children do have reason, and some of them are pretty smart. But they haven't yet fully learned to use that reason. A very small child will believe what a person in authority tells him. But the 13-year-old resents authority, and has not yet learned to weigh arguments carefully. He is easily persuaded by iconoclasm, and society encourages his worship of the vapid. No one is claiming that Pul
Well, it seems to have eaten a good chunk of my comment -- my many apologies, but I really must get back to outlining my Civil Procedure notes and don't have time to reconstruct it. But someone get AC and Crumbunist a Bible, a Catechism, and a book on elementary logic.
Re: Utilitarianism. I am not proposing that calculated happiness is the proper moral method, but that Jesus taught Love, Unity, Faith, Hope, Charity and Good Deeds. These traits are all compatible with doing good and with altruistic humanism. What matters is the will to do good, to help, and to a much lesser extent the effects of your actions. Jesus is forgiveness, after all.
Re: Metaphysics. The possibility of an unseen God the Creator in Pullman's books is compatible with Deism or Mysticism. That is, God set the universe in motion and stepped back [also compatible with human free will] or God is unknowably infinite. These views, Free Will and the unknowable God, are both compatible with most views of Christianity, to some extent or another (God may intervene every now and then).
Re: Rebellious Teenagers. Of course teens rebel, it is in their nature. They must rebel in order to test the limits of what they can and cannot do. If a 13 year old reads this book and rejects his faith (which I do not think is likely because I went through that experience and did not do that), that does not mean he will never return to it later in life. The book has other, more overt messages too, that will help that kid cope anyway. Messages like the value of life, and freedom, and coping with loss. These books don't replace faith with nihilism in any way.
Also your post cut off at "No one is claiming that Pul"
I posted too late, my apologies.
Oh, right. I asked earlier and never got an answer. Is Judaism less valid than Catholicism?
"You are a Catholic and that means you are a holy nerd! Stop trying to pretend that you can have your faith and the acceptance of your Catholic peers.
Stop being so ashamed of who you are!"
who says i'm ashamed of who i am? and i don't quite understand what you are talking about by holy nerd and about me trying to pretend to have faith?
Paul, as for your comment: "Third, judging by their statements, neither A.C. nor Crumbunist have children of the age described as being the primary audience of these books."
we both have actually said we've read it when we were young. i believe Crumbunist said he/she read it at age 13. I read it at around age 14. we ARE the children you speak of who've read the books. we are trying to tell you that we are fine! oy...
You're not fine. You obviously have been affected by what you have read. Otherwise you would not, as a professed CATHOLIC, be making the arguments that you are making. Either that or you were poorly catechized in the faith and have been corrupted more than you realize.
From the style and tone of your writing I guess you're quite young (early 20s at most) and have not experienced much of life at all. You probably won't understand until you actually have children that you are responsibility to bring up and protect how things are different. Then you may understand that it is much different to be a parent than a child. By that point with the perspective of years to view the consequences of your actions, the choices you made as a child, may not be the ones you want for your children.
Peace to you.
I think Crumbunist said all we have to hear when he said there's nothing wrong with pornography.
But, hey, how can you tell it's bad unless you try it? I mean, for instance, I hear cyanide is good for you, you won't know until you try! Stop being so judgmental! I mean, you're starting to act like that Jesus guy who was so mean to drive the money changers out from the temple. That guy needs to learn some peace and tolerance! *passes the bong*
"Then you may understand that it is much different to be a parent than a child. By that point with the perspective of years to view the consequences of your actions, the choices you made as a child, may not be the ones you want for your children."
I already understand that. It is still important to understand that a child thinks differently from the parent. The choices my parents made for me were not always the ones I wanted for myself, even in retrospect. I missed many opportunities for personal and spiritual growth because my parents insisted I follow their decisions and not my own. A child must be allowed to make their own decisions [when it is reasonable]. A child must be allowed to make their own mistakes, just as the parent learned from theirs. There has never been a generation that was perfectly identical to their parents and perfectly conformed to their desires for their children. It is through these differences, and mistakes, and decisions that children come to appreciate the world in their own right, for their own reasons, not their parents. It's much easier to believe something if you experience it or choose it for yourself. Humans have free will. God doesn't want us to follow his Word to the letter, he wants us to find our own path to him, through His churches and His son. I kept asking earlier about Judaism because I was proving a point. God has revealed texts and faiths to more than just Christians. The Jews have a covenant with him, the Christians have the teachings of Christ, and the Muslims have the revealed word of the Koran. At the center of each of these religions, and every other, is The Golden Rule. That is what is important, not the specifics of one's faith. Jesus forgives your small errors and your uninformed decisions, God forgives if you join "the wrong church," because they are all routes to Him and His Word. Children must find their own route to God, because only then can they truly appreciate it and have full faith in it.
"But, hey, how can you tell it's bad unless you try it? I mean, for instance, I hear cyanide is good for you, you won't know until you try! Stop being so judgmental! I mean, you're starting to act like that Jesus guy who was so mean to drive the money changers out from the temple. That guy needs to learn some peace and tolerance! *passes the bong*"
You missed what I was saying there. I said that sexuality is not original sin and it does not offend God unless you partake in excess of it. I did not say that all things should be given a shot, but that pornography is not inherently evil [a lot of it is disgusting though and probably sinful, even to atheists]. The real point I was making, in context of this argument, is that pornography does not alter your worldview. Psychological tests show that violent pornography has a very short term [as in, immediately after viewing] effect on viewers, whereas docile pornography does not have adverse effects. There are also many, many studies th
many studies that show sex can be good for you, in moderation. The final point was that pornography is not evil by its nature--the excessive consumption of it is. The argument that
"The best response I've heard to the "it's just fiction" argument is:
"So is pornography."
is false because neither are going to destroy you unless you take them in excess, and internalize them. A despicable act or idea will not infiltrate your head and suddenly become good just because you read and enjoyed a book. You can still disagree with something and enjoy it. If you do internalize a book's message, then it's not all that incompatible with your beliefs.
"You're not fine. You obviously have been affected by what you have read. Otherwise you would not, as a professed CATHOLIC, be making the arguments that you are making. Either that or you were poorly catechized in the faith and have been corrupted more than you realize."
Dead on Capt Tom. Unfortunately, judging from his subsequent responses and his lack of theological understanding of Truth and Beauty, crumbunist is not listening, just repeating his subjective view of truth and beauty. He defines the sinfulness of pornography as whether it psychologically harms you...a corrupt orientation if there ever were one. There are two ships passing in the night through this exchange; one Catholic in viewpoint and understanding, and the other modernist and self indulgent. Crumbunist will hopefully learn in time...St Augustine did and many of us learned as well. Oh well, "youth is waisted on the young." :)
I don't think sexuality is self-indulgent. It also isn't sin in and of itself, or it would never be right. That isn't important though, because the "So is pornography" argument is about fiction and the mind, not the soul. Viewing or reading something that does not fit into your beliefs or world view will not cause your beliefs to mysteriously realign themselves. Reading these books will not transform children into atheists unless they already had strong doubts about their faith. Those doubts cannot be changed against the child's will, especially once they become a rebellious teenager. Being less combative and confrontational with your children is the way to go: they must arrive at their own conclusions and their own path to God and it is the parents' responsibility to show them at least one path to God. It is not parental duty to force a specific religion on a child.
Bob,
likewise, dead on. I agree. I am actually not surprised neither crumbunist or AC get it. Considering what passes for education at most colleges and high school, they certainly do not learn critical thinking. Lately, supposed places of "higher learning," seem discourage critical thinking, but instead encourage relative thinking especially in regards to morals. They also tend to be encouraged towards verbal blathering and parroting of concepts. "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Oh well. We tried. Time and the Holy Spirit will have to do the rest.
PAX
Crumbunist,
I guess you figure if you keep repeating it we will some how see it your way? You spout words without proof or grounding in truth. You've been a kid, big deal, and so what. You haven't raised any and you haven't any record of years to prove that this moral teflon to atheism and such is real. Considering the real possibility that if you're wrong,(which you are) then someone's immortal soul is at stake, I think I'll stay on the safe side with the Church. At least they have a couple thousand years of success. You've got well, nothing.
Think words have no effect? Then you don't know anything about propaganda. What a tool you are of the forces of moral relativity. You think yourself and independent thinker, but really you're no better off than some slob in Nazi Germany gobbling up at the drought the propaganda swill that Hitler and Goebbels dispensed on a daily basis. Except instead of getting a steady diet of Nazi Fascism, you're fed at the teet of Progressive Fascism which is just as morally flawed.
Well, I've wasted enough time on this effort.
PAX
"You're not fine. You obviously have been affected by what you have read. Otherwise you would not, as a professed CATHOLIC, be making the arguments that you are making. Either that or you were poorly catechized in the faith and have been corrupted more than you realize."
Excuse me. what do you mean by corrupted? is it because i am more inquisitive in nature? is it because i am trying to understand more about my faith and how people apply faith to their ways of thinking and how they act toward others? are YOU telling ME you have THE solid faith of faiths? please. enlighten me.
as far as i know, EVERYONE has ever developing faith. nobody can say "i know everything about my faith and i understand everything." i don't think anyone (ANYONE) can go up to a pulpit and go "HEY, I'm holier than all of you, therefore I am better than you" --that is what some of you sound like, for your information whether you choose to believe it or not. =/
and i fear for your children if this is how you treat them. do you silence them when they are curious about something? do you look down upon them because of their apparently serious lack in faith?
crumbunist is young. i am young. is this the way you treat your young? or are your kids born knowing all already?
What comes first, being a Christian or a Catholic? I don't understand why denomination is more important to some people than the actual teachings of Jesus Christ. I am not arguing relativism for relativism's sake, I am arguing that Jesus and God are loving and forgiving. They revealed the Word to humanity, The Golden Rule, and said to act in accordance with the rule, to act in Jesus' example. I am arguing that what is important about being a Christian is not belonging to the right church, but following the teachings of Christ as he himself instructed: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:12) Jesus also tells us not to follow the letter of the law, as the Pharisees did, but to follow the spirit of it.
Also fascism is the opposite of the liberty that His Dark Materials tries to express, so your argument there is inherently flawed.
"Jesus also tells us not to follow the letter of the law, as the Pharisees did, but to follow the spirit of it."
hear hear!! Jesus got mad at them because they were being hypocrites. they were so smug that they were following the law, but their hearts were a different story. there are too many people out there too smug about their "solid faith." instead of sitting there smirking and judging, why don't you work on soften your hearts? Jesus was merciful. his mission was full of mercy and love. are your responses full of mercy and love? i don't think so... for those of you who "live the faith," look back at your comments....
"Considering what passes for education at most colleges and high school, they