Golden Compass

[Popeyesays]

The real message of Reveloations is that victory comes in perseverance, that God must be trusted to bring it right in the end.

It was a pep talk aimed at the disillusioned church of the day and age.

Regards.
Scott

[Tao_Equus]

Lol, if that was a "pep talk" then it just goes to show that the foundations of the church are sick and diseased. As I understand it linguistic study of the texts reveals there to be at least 2 authors, possibly even 3 or 4. I have no doubt it was constructed as a political tool, a device that could be interpreted and reinterpreted to suit the justification of any atrocity. And there were countless.
And in the modern era, any old schizophrenic or mad delusional will do exactly the same. At least they have the excuse of being not of sound mind. But that the churches have not collectively seen fit to banish such rambling crap from the bible shows that the church remains what it always was...a power base much less interested in its peoples welfare than in the filthy lucre it can extract from them.

Tao

[Popeyesays]

The autho9r of the Revelation makes it clear over and over that he is speaking of events and persons of his own time. So those who wish to uswe it justify dark delusions are at fault for all you mention, Tao.

Regards,
Scott

[path_of_one]

Well, I went to see the movie. I can't resist fantasy of any kind. My take: it was OK. Some good special effects and I liked the talking animals. But it just wasn't that stellar of a story. There was nothing... new about it. The concept of "demons" (animal spirits in which the soul resides) is not much different from the concept of having a familiar. Then you have talking bears, witches, gypsy/pirate folk, and dust (which basically was a simplified version of many worlds theory and strings). The Golden Compass reminded me of the first Tomb Raider thingie that the Illuminati were after. In fact, the Magisterium reminded me of the Illuminati too.

It didn't seem very anti-Catholic. More like anti-authority and anti-institution. Which is great and fine, but not that exciting.

Maybe the books are much better? (Someone please tell me if they are.)

There just wasn't any of the depth- to the characters or to the world or to the plot- that Tolkein and Lewis have. It didn't approach other series that haven't been made into movies, like Donaldson or Goodkind. At any rate, a nice bit of entertainment, but not life changing. I can't imagine how it would challenge a Christian's faith, either, but maybe the books were more explicit. My main thing I took away was a wish that we all had furry friends following us around. LOL I'm an animal lover and I couldn't help but think it'd be awfully fun to have an animal companion at work.

[Thomas]

Hi Path_of_one —

Originally Posted by path_of_one

The concept of "demons" (animal spirits in which the soul resides) is not much different from the concept of having a familiar.

According to an interview with the author I read, he got the idea from 'Old Master' portraits which depicted the subject with a favourite pet.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

It didn't seem very anti-Catholic. More like anti-authority and anti-institution. Which is great and fine, but not that exciting.

I know. The point was he used a very 'Catholic' term — Magisterium — and as it was a church, then the parallel is obvious, hence the rather unneccesary uproar. Again I think this is more media manipulation than anything else.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Maybe the books are much better? (Someone please tell me if they are.)

The main protagonist being a young girl — something Pulman repeats elsewhere — pleased my partner and daughter. I think the first is better than the second, and the second better than the third.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

There just wasn't any of the depth - to the characters or to the world or to the plot - that Tolkein and Lewis have.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I can't imagine how it would challenge a Christian's faith, either, but maybe the books were more explicit.

I don't think so ... I think the 'challenge to faith' is a bit of a misnomer. I think the real issue for conscious Christians is the constant portrayal of Christianity in a negative light. I can't remember the last time I saw a Christian, let alone a priest, being the good guy ... it's an acceptable social stereotype, nowadays, the dog-collar becoming the sign of something wrong.

It doesn't appear as the author has any issue with Catholicism, her just doesn't believe. His grandfather was an Aglican vicar, and he had quite a well-heeled upbringinging, so no deep-rooted trauma to work through. To me it was a sign of a lack of imagination, which I think cost the books in the long run ... he had worked out his villains 'locally', but not in depth.

There's a lovely story from Sir Alec Guiness about his conversion to Catholicism. He was filming the 'Father Brown' stories in France, and used to walk the couple of k. from the film set to the house he had rented in his clerical garb. One day he met a schoolchild on the way home, and the child, assuming him to be a priest, fell in step, held his hand, and chatted away in a stream of French that sir Alec cound not comprehend. Sir Alc said he was so moved by the implicit trust of the child ... in a world full of suspicion ... it made him wonder, and set him thinking...

Anyway ... ther book is better than the film, but don't expect too much.

Thomas

[Taosaur]

I won't be seeing the movie because of all the mediocre reviews. The consensus seems to be, "There's a controversy over this?"