The Golden Compass

[basildestiny]

SIGH! I am a lot disappointed. I really wanted to see this movie.

It looked really cool! Fighting polar bears voiced by Gandalf/Magneto/Ian McKellan! Nicole Kidman! Talking animal friends!

But I should have known something was up when they were called daemons. Duh.

The Snopes' site

I really don't understand that kind of hatred. I guess I actually do understand that kind of hatred. I know exactly who wants to kill God. That's no mystery since he's already killed God's son.

And I know that this (by this I don't mean this post, but I mean opposition to the movie) will all get twisted and put on Christ Followers as we are intolerant of others. Or else we just aren't tolerant of ideas different from our own. It should not surprise anyone that we don't like movies based on books which kill the Creator of the Universe. Regardless of your opinions, Christ Followers are not out to kill other people's gods. Christ Followers are called to show the world the love of Christ. Being flawed sinners ourselves, we have failed and will fail at that. Our failure doesn't nullify the commandment "You will not kill."

So now I'm really disappointed. I was really looking forward to seeing that next month...next week actually. Kind of ironic that the same company that made Lord of the Rings is making this movie. Since Lord of the Rings is J R Tolkien's epic Christian Tale and that he was friends with C S Lewis. C S Lewis who is hated by Phillip Pullman for his Christian story The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. So it's like one degree of seperation. I have a feeling that might have been the idea though. Get the folks to come see the movie which should be awesome cuz its by the same folks who did LotR which was awesome! Weren't some of the same folks who did LotR effects also in Chronicles of Narnia? I think so, but I couldn't find it for certain. I should just looked on the wiki, but it's too late for that now.

I really wanted to see that. =\ ._.

Comments

[mossytangle.livejournal.com]

That movie does look so beautiful, but for once it's pretty apparent that the Christian Boycott Machine isn't overreacting. Usually, it's "OMG, there are gay artists at Disney!" or "OMG CHILD 'WITCHES!'" or "OMG KISSING! Ewww!" For maybe the first time, I'm not going to see a movie that looks absolutely beautiful, strictly on principle.

What I don't get: Why would any kid want to read a book about killing God? Doesn't that seem pretty grim? I mean, seriously, an Atheist Fairytale? Could anything be more boring or depressing?

[magenta513.livejournal.com]

I find myself more curious about the movie now, but much more on a intellectual/research mode, rather than a sincere desire or interest in the plot/message. My analytical side wants to see exactly what this "Atheist Fairytale" is, and yet, I wonder if I'll really be able to enjoy it.

[basildestiny]

Me too! I think knowledge of a thing is important. Kind of like when my parents watched a movie when I was little before I was allowed to watch it to make sure there weren't any questionable parts. And if there were questionable parts, we could discuss what they were and why I was not going to be allowed to watch that movie.

I REALLY badly want to see this movie. But I want to see the movie that I thought it was in the trailer which it won't be when I see it. So I'll just be disappointed. I'm sure all that I will see now are the messages from the author.

I may see it down the line so I can speak about it or maybe I'll read the trilogy. It's kind of like the Davinci Code. How can I argue against the book when I don't even know the points that it makes. (Which I haven't read that book yet. I checked it out about 3 years ago and it was so boring in the first chapter that I returned it to the library unread.)

If you do see it, let me know what you think.

[basildestiny]

I guess it doesn't start out as an Atheist Fairytale. It starts out with magic and witches and battling polar bears and talking animal companions! But in comes the plot which is that the Church is fooling people into believing silly things. And so our heroine (not the drug) must save the world from being brainwashed and in the very end of the third book, Yahweh is killed.

Like I was commenting to another friend, I suppose at some point I will read the books so I can speak more intelligently on the subject. For now, I won't be seeing, as you called it an absolutely beautiful looking movie.

[vitani-le.livejournal.com]

I'm sure all that I will see now are the messages from the author.

You know, in my Literature class, we've been discussing whether or not what the author intends is even relevant. After all, when you read the book, you don't have the author's interpretations of his/her words in front of you, only the words themselves. You, and only you, assign meanings to the words when you read them.

The same goes for the movie, too. Perhaps the movie will be so glaringly about "killing God" that you can't read it any other way. But maybe not. Maybe you can find your own meaning to it. Maybe "the Church" could just be an example of anything--religious or otherwise--that shields information from people. Goodness knows that churches have done it before, and that many, many other organizations have done it too. Pullman's reason for picking the church as his example is probably pretty obvious, but you don't have to read it the way he intends it.

One of the things I can't stand about my Lit prof is that he judges books that he's never read. I don't want to see you, or anyone else, do that same thing. Go see the movie.

Besides, it does your intelligence good to listen to viewpoints you don't agree with. How will you learn to contradict and disprove them better without being exposed to them and trying to learn from them?

[vitani-le.livejournal.com]

Oh, and also... Sorry if I'm reading way too much into this, but your post was fascinating to me.

And I know that this (by this I don't mean this post, but I mean opposition to the movie) will all get twisted and put on Christ Followers as we are intolerant of others.

I am angry with a lot of people who are protesting this movie. But that's not just because they are protesting it, it's their reason why. Many of them don't develop a better reason than "because it has Atheist themes". And yes, that is very intolerant of them (especially if they praised the Chronicles of Narnia). But I can understand the protest against the "killing of God", the idea makes me rather uncomfortable... In a way similar to how I'm uncomfortable with any movie that portrays murder, of any person or being. (In fact, I'm rather disgusted by the way murder is so commonplace and trivial in film... But that's beside the point.)

Christ Followers are not out to kill other people's gods.

Are you sure? Are you sure we aren't all out to kill each other's Gods/belief systems? Anytime we try to impress our beliefs onto others, or believe that other people's gods are false, we're trying to "de-existify" their beliefs, and that doesn't seem much different from "killing God" (or at least, killing someone else's conception of God) to me.

[basildestiny]

Yep, I am sure. Disproving the existence of something, while it can be allegorical, a simile or metaphorical, is not quite the same as literally killing something. In general, people have gotten out of control with artistic liscense lately. While it is a fascinating idea that has been pursued in many movies that I've greatly enjoyed, it truly isn't the same thing.

Just because we don't believe in something, doesn't make it dead. An acquaintance of mine was feeling under the weather the other day and made a cute entry about "I don't believe in getting sick. I don't believe in getting sick." While positive emotions are one thing that can help fight off a cold, simply not believing in the cold didn't make the cold any less real. Therefore, not believing in the cold did not murder the cold. Whereas, taking antibiotics to kill a bacterial infection will indeed murder the bacterial infection regardless of one's belief in the existence of that infection.

I do agree that is intolerant of them. It is also their right to dislike it simply because it has Aethist themes just as it is someone else's right to like it because it has Aethist themes. They can protest it, just as the other person can support it.

It is nice when people have a better reason for disliking something. But I think that a lot of folks generalize that reasoning into meaningless jargon. For you, the simplier the reason, the easier it is for you to believe. For example, you would support the gay pride fair because to you it is an example of love. And love is good. For me, I wouldn't go because it is a twisted kind of love. Just as I wouldn't go to a fair about cheating on your spouse as that is also a twisted kind of love. I do believe love is good. I even believe that a man can love another man or a woman another woman. I just believe that if that love is in a sexual sort of way, it changes the meaning of it. (Just for brevity's sake, I'm not going on that tangent. Partly because some of the science is still out on the subject and partly because my reasoning is logic based on proofs and I haven't filled them all in yet.) Nothing wrong with being simple, but if you simplified my reasons, as has happened in the past (although not by you specifically), it gets simplified to I don't believe in love. Totally incorrect, it is the basis of my beliefs.

[basildestiny]

I won't go see the movie because seeing the movie is supporting the movie, and the author. I do intend, at some point, to see the movie or read the books at a time when I will not be supporting the author. I'm not opposed to being challenged (though I like to have breaks from challenges and not have constant challenge as that gets overwhelming and tiresome). My faith even says that I should challenge everything and that if my beliefs can withstand the challenge, than it is the truth.

The author's intent is extremely important when reading literary works. A lot of literary works are political or political in nature and the author would be extremely upset if we didn't consider their intentions. The Scarlet Letter was written to take a look at the Puritans and their views, to wonder if they were taking things too seriously, to bring a risque subject to the forefront of discussion. Or we could just see a book about an impish girl and her mom. If we choose the latter, we are missing out on a lot that Hawthorne was trying to say.

I have often read a literary work and felt as though a light had been turned on. Yet it is important to me that I make sure that what I took away from the book was what the author intended. Sometimes it is simple, like Harry Potter--to be entertained. Sometimes it is more in depth like CS Lewis' The Magician's Nephew which keeps revealing more to me as time goes on.

Another example would be my Major Author Project my junior year of high school. We were allowed to chose one author from a list, we were then to read several works by that author and make a presentation on what we had learned. I truly enjoyed my author, but I completely missed EVERYTHING she had been trying to say. I missed her recurring themes, her metaphors, her allegories, the whole reason she bothered to get up every day and write another part of the book. All I took away was that her stories were extremely odd, but entertaining. Looking back, I can't believe I managed the grade that I got, but I think the teacher realized that perhaps I hadn't been guided well enough to find the things she wanted us to find.

I could write an essay and more on why author's intent is important. Yet I will disgress by saying that if you are simply reading for entertainment, than author's intent is irrelevant. If you are reading for knowledge, for understanding, to get the big picture, author intentions are very important.

Lastly, it is a movie and it is made to entertain. The movie, though, is deceptive. Movies really are no longer made simply to entertain, they all have some intention that the producer, the writer, or someone wants to get across. Even Transformers with all of its entertainment value did take swipes at the politcal state. This movie is geared toward kids and teens with a great big huge build up by the producers and the sponsors and advertising agents (who all hope to take home lots of money) to bring in kids and their parents. And I almost went for it. It would have then been a disappointment for me and I would have been upset at myself for not doing the research on the movie and it would have been a lesson learned to be more careful.

For someone else, it would have been just another thing to shrug at and say "Well that movie was alright, but not great. I didn't know it was going to be all religious."

It all depends on what is important to you.

[vitani-le.livejournal.com]

I confess, I don't really understand how the metaphor of comparing "killing God" to "killing a cold" works. Yes, the cold is "real" (insofar as what "real" means to us) and can be observed to be "killed" through antibiotics. But that's exactly what makes it different from "killing God", because "God" cannot be directly observed as real, like the cold is, and (despite what The Golden Compass projects), cannot be observed as dead. The only way I can imagine for killing something that cannot be proven to exist is to erase the possibility of it existing, which is exactly what differing belief systems try to do to each other's beliefs.

I don't mind the people who simply say that they don't like the Atheist themes in the The Golden Compass. Like you said, that is perfectly within their right. What bothers me is the actual protest to the movie -- not the people who simply refuse to see it, but those who try to prevent others from doing so, those who are going so far as to try and get it removed from the theaters. They can tell someone, "TGC has Atheist themes, watch at your own discretion," and that's fine. But to think they have the right to prevent others from seeing it? That I do not agree with.

I try my very best to have logical arguments, not just meaningless simplified reasons, to support my beliefs. I took Logic as a class last semester and I'm taking Ethics right now, to help me build stronger arguments and to understand my own beliefs better (and alter those that no longer seem to have as logical of an argument to them). I won't go into the whole gay love thing if you don't want to, "for the sake of brevity". But I will say this -- I would never assume that you "don't believe in love" because you believe that gay relationships are, to quote, "twisted". (And I would just love to know what you mean by "twisted", for the record.) But also, please don't assume that my reasoning for supporting gay relationships is simply "gay pride is love, and love is good". We could get into a very long discussion about it -- and I would love to, as I thoroughly enjoy debating with you and hearing your side of the issue; hardly ever do I hear reasons against gay relationships that are more developed than "God said it's wrong" -- for I've given a lot of time towards thinking through why exactly I believe what I do. I'm sure you know that.

And now that I've managed to take this waaaaay off tangent, back to my original query: are you still planning on boycotting The Golden Compass? I would hope that you would plan on going to see it now, if only to understand what the plot really is all about and to formulate your own meaning from it, not the author's intended one. If I'm correct (which I might not be, I haven't seen it), the concept of "killing God" doesn't even come up in this particular movie at all, anyway.

[vitani-le.livejournal.com]

Aw crap, we were replying to each other at the same time... I'll read this response in a little while, but I have a personal issue to attend to right now... Ethan's been in a car accident... Not serious, but I still need to see him.

[basildestiny]

No, I still do not plan on going to see the movie. It will put money into the pocket of someone for whom I do not wish to give my money. Especially since I know what his intention was for writing the book, regardless of if the final actual killing is in this movie or not. I find a movie based on a book that ends with the God I believe to be sovereign and the basis of all that is good very offensive and regardless of what I might take away from it, I won't be going to see it. Again, I may see it at a later time when my seeing it will not directly translate into money going to Phillip Pullman's pocket.

I wanted to stay on topic with this post rather than tread into the always controversial gay conversation. Perhaps we can get into that topic. I'll try to find some good references and put together an entry (for which I hope my liberal acquaintances won't go off the Richter scale). It's always a source they like to bash me on and hence I've been slow to work my way through my beliefs to the logic of it. So I will most likely just quote my favorite apologetics who are much better with words than I.

[basildestiny]

I was afraid we might be doing that!

Also that's horrible about Ethan! I hope that he is ok. :(

[basildestiny]

I didn't address the cold/God analogy. Just because God cannot be directly observed with the eye doesn't mean that God does not exist. A popular example is the wind. You cannot directly observe wind. It is not visible; however, you can see the effects of the wind.

Besides for our discussion, we needed to assume that God or many gods exist in order for them to be killed. Our discussion was disproving something versus physically killing something. In the book (from the sources I have read that Pullman doesn't deny) there is a physical representation of God named Yahweh (which is the Hebrew word God used to name himself, meaning To Be or I Am) who is killed by the boy and girl characters.

Disproving God or any god or gods' existence(s) is different from killing God, god, or gods. Which is where I used the analogy of a cold. We weren't debating the existence of the cold itself, just whether believing in the cold was the same as killing the cold.

[vitani-le.livejournal.com]

I do hope you don't think of me as one of the "liberal acquaintances who would go off the Richter scale". I would challenge you, certainly, but I'm also aware that you are very intelligent and would not make rash statements without having thought them through, and would by no means try to demean you for it. I would challenge you for the experience of debating, gathering new information, and understanding a different point of view more than anything else. (And, of course, passing along my information and point of view to you.)

I understand where you were going with the cold/God analogy better now, thanks. :) I understand how it can relate to specifically the God that is portrayed in The Golden Compass now, since that God obviously exists within the context of the movie. I would just add that I don't think that's the same God that you believe in, that your God is not going to be represented accurately in any literature or portrayal you find (unless, of course, your image of God is based strictly on the Bible's literal portrayal and you take the Bible to be of a divine command-style authority, and even when there is a plethora of ways to interpret it). I sincerely doubt your God (assuming His existence, of course) can be killed at all, much less by a bunch of schoolchildren. I still believe that disproving a god's existence is still the closest we can come to killing a hypothetical being, but I also believe that your God should not be threatened by anything in The Golden Compass.

Nonetheless, I can understand not wanting to monetarily support someone who projects beliefs that you don't agree with or find offensive. I don't think I would have the same issue; I'd be too impatient to wait, and too curious to pass the opportunity up to witness how the "other side" thinks. Plus I would have to thank them for attempting to clarify a point of view to me that I couldn't previously understand (granted they were trying to explain themselves in some fashion, logically or metaphorically or otherwise, and not just projecting their beliefs).

Sorry this response took so long, this is the last week before final exams and all of my end-of-semester papers have been piling on me!

[basildestiny]

No, you wouldn't rank as one of those. You are always eloquent and logical and non-emotional which is key. I really don't talk to those folks anymore. Or else we've had our blow ups and come to a conclusion. But you just never know when you post some of the stuff we're talking about debating. Sometimes it touches a sore spot. But I think I have the solution for that: a filter. I'll add you to it and then see if anyone else wants on. I don't want to start posting that kind of stuff willy nilly. People don't neccessarily want to read that when they go to their personal journal.

I do believe that God, being able to create the universe, is quite capable of making sure His Word is properly translated. So I believe that book will be very good at describing Him. Actually it is the source for descriptions of Him. Though he does reveal Himself in other ways as well.

Having come from the other side, I'm not really interested in why Phillip Pullman doesn't believe in God. He's free to do so. I personally don't believe he needs to go enlittling unsuspecting children and their parents hence this entry. I have already convinced myself that God didn't exist and then come back from that after I found compelling personal, logical, literal, and historical evidence.

Glad you were able to get back to it. Always interesting debating with you.

[vitani-le.livejournal.com]

Woo, I'm back again! (One week of finals and moving back into the parents' house later...) Sorry I'm so horrendous with responding quickly; believe me, it's not just you, I'm like this with everything.

I'm very glad to hear that you enjoy debating with me. I've always enjoyed doing it with you; you are the most eloquent and rational of the people I know who are rather far away from me on the political and religious spectrums. And I do quite like your filter idea; use whatever means you need to express what you really think and believe about something. That's what LiveJournal's all about.

I've heard the argument that God would ensure that His Word be properly translated before. What I've never heard is a response to this question: What about inaccuracies in translation that have been observed, such as the original use of the term "beulah" when referring to Mary, the mother of Jesus (a word that means "maiden", but does not directly refer to a woman's virginal status) that is often translated into "virgin" in English? How is this resolved?

Um... I don't know what "enlittling" means, nor can I find it in the dictionary. Is that a typo of some sort?

I'm very curious to know what your "compelling personal, logical, literal, and historical evidence" is. (And yes, I would be scrutinizing it for inaccuracies, but I would also be looking for new, previously unknown-to-me information too.) But I know that's far, far too much to answer in one post, so I'll leave that for the filtered posts later. ;)

[basildestiny]

Welcome back! I haven't done the filter idea yet. Just haven't been in the mood to look up reference materials and I've been busy working and getting ready for Christmas.

I'm sure enlittling was a typo, but I don't know what I was trying to say now.

I wouldn't have an answer to your question simply because I've not been bothered by it to research it. I'll see what I can find out. My unresearched answer would be to say there is other contextual content to leads to virginal status. It depends on the verse in which you are referring as well.

I'll see what I can find out and get back to you. And I'll cut this one a little short. It's been a long day and too long to clearly or accurately respond.