“The Golden Compass” by Philip Pullman: Reader Beware?

goldencompassposter2big.jpg

This past summer I’ve been hearing about this book called “The Golden Compass” by Philip Pullman and how it is ‘Anti-Christian’. When I heard it was going to be a major motion picture, I figured that it would be quite the topic for conversation, so I bought the book and gave it a quick read over the last week or so. I would challenge you to also read the book and not just take my word for it. And if you are a parent, it’s that much more important to read the books your children are reading. Let me say from the beginning, if you don’t want the ending ruined in any way, you shouldn’t read this review. In order to clearly explain things, I will have to give away plot lines.

“The Golden Compass” is a book geared towards children, as that is where I had to go at the Barnes and Nobles I bought it at. It is the first in a series of three books called “His Dark Materials”. It is written by a strong atheist in response to “The Chronicles of Narnia”. The book won the Carnegie Medal for children’s fiction in the UK in 1995, and in 2007 it was selected by judges of the Carnegie Medal as one of the ten most important children’s novels of the past 70 years. (info from wikipedia) The third book in the series won the Whitbread Prize in 2001, the first children’s book to do so. And more recently the first book made it on Al Roker’s book reading club’s book list. Needless to say, these books have won quite the popularity, and the movie coming out will only encourage children to flock to read the books.

Like I said, Pullman is a very avowed Atheist and even said in an interview with a newspaper in Sydney, “My books are about killing God.” That is in fact, what he does in the third book, where a character that is obviously the allegorical character for God. The books and the movie have been condemned by the Catholic League. I would imagine that the movies themselves will ‘tone down’ anti-God rhetoric found in the book. Otherwise the studios would be running far too much of a risk of alienating and severely offending a majority of its intended audience. I should also say here that the movie is rated PG-13, as I would imagine with many of the violent battles and tense situations.

So what is in the book, you ask? Let me first lay out the plot. The setting is a basically a parallel dimension to our world. It has most of the same geographical locations, with a large portion of the book set in London. But this world has witches, talking bears, and every human has what he calls a ‘daemon’. These daemons are small animals that are basically the human’s souls or spirit, but live outside of the person. The reflect the personality of the person, and until a child hits puberty, they can shift depending on the situation the person finds them in. A large portion of the book focuses on the relationship between humans and their daemons.

A very significant plot line that much of the criticism springs from is the fact that society is run by The Church. The Church in the book is obviously modeled after The Roman Catholic Church. They run everything in society and anyone who encourages thought contrary to the Church is condemned, locked away, or even killed. This is a good place to mention that religious figures are generally treated with contempt and distrust in the book. Main characters make habit of mocking them. It ma be subtle, but the anti-religion clamor reaches a climax at the end of the book.

The main character is a young 11 year old girl named Lyra . She has been raised in Oxford at Jordan College and hardly acts as they say a girl should act. She is the good natured kid who is always running around, hanging around with kids she shouldn’t be, going places she shouldn’t go and generally causing problems around campus. There are definitely some behavioral problems that Lyra exhibits that seemingly go uncondemned. Throughout the book she uses foul language, although the author never actually writes a foul word. It just tells the reader that she used every foul word she knew. There are other points in the book where she is drinking hard alcohol or smoking and no one condemns the behavior of an eleven year old.

The main plot is that there are some people that are kidnapping children and it is Lyra’s job to find out why they were taken, where they were taken to, and help rescue them. The child kidnapping hits home with Lyra, as one of her best friends and partner in crime is suddenly missing. She sets off on a mission that takes her on adventures she’s never experienced and makes relationships that go deeper than any she’s previously had. Along the way she begins to discover exactly what’s going on, and what the nature of ‘dust’ is. ‘Dust’ is spoken of throughout the book, and as her journey progresses, she finds out more about it. What they know is that this ‘dust’ is a particle that cannot be broken down and appears naturally. Oddly, researches have found that the ‘dust’ is not drawn to children, but only to adults.

This pushes an organization to study the ‘dust’ and what it is, how it works, and when it attaches to humans. This leads them to kidnap the children in order to study them. They effectually torture the children, and most that are put through the procedure end up dying. As she finds out, the Church is behind the people kidnapping, studying, and torturing. It is not until the last few pages that the bomb, though, is dropped. The Church believes that the Dust is Original Sin. They believe when a child goes through puberty, that they no longer have the ability to reject the ‘dust’. And if they can somehow figure out how to keep this from happening, the Church wil have defeated Original Sin.

For those of you who don’t know what Original Sin is, it depends on your doctrinal position. Most would say that it is the sin nature passed down from Adam. The Catholic Church believes infant baptism erases this Original Sin. So, the Church, in the book, is sacrificing the lives of countless innocent children to figure this out.

One of the greatest dangers of this book is the seed of fear and mistrust of Christianity that it would plant in the minds of children. It is written from an atheist perspective, and I’m sure Pullman would say exactly what countless other Atheists have said: The Church is responsible for more deaths, tragedy, and suffering than any other organization, and all in the name of “God”. This is almost a main tenet of modern atheism. What they don’t tell you are the countless lives lost to atheist tyrants such as Pol Pot, Marx, Stalin, Slobodan Milosevic, Lenin, and Mao Tse-Tung. All were dictators. All were tyrants. All were atheists.

Now, obviously, this isn’t to say that all atheists are cruel, tyrannical dictators with hearts set on mass murder. But their heritage is hardly innocent. The fact is that all men are capable of doing such atrocities, and just because something is done in the name of God doesn’t mean that God approved of such a practice or even that they were genuine believers in God.

My last warning about the book is that it contains some very graphic and tense situations. Comparisons to “The Chronicles of Narnia” are inevitable, and having now read both, I can say with assurance that this has much more blood and gore than “Narnia”. There is talk of people who bore holes in the heads of people, eating the guts of children, the crushing of heads and tearing off of limbs, and similar behavior. Probably the most traumatic moment in the book has to do with what they do at the experiment station. I don’t want to talk about it, as that would ruin part of the book, but I don’t think it is at all appropriate for young children to read. It has very tense situations and subject matter that a pre-teen shouldn’t necessarily be reading.

Besides that, I have to say that the book was very readable, and I can see how it won awards, although it’s anti-God, pro-Atheism stance probably helped it out in that area. I found it a generally entertaining book that read quickly. From strictly a literary point of view, I can see that it is probably going to be a very entertaining movie.

So what should the concerned Christian parent do. If you have any questions, read the book for yourself and use your own discernment as to whether you want to allow your child to read it. I think we too often just dismiss things because we don’t agree with them, and maybe it would be good to discuss the danger points with your child. Our society is quickly being more and more influenced by the new Atheism and voices such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are becoming louder. Do you teach your child to put their head in the sand, or should we seek to discuss these things with them. This may be a good opportunity to teach them discernment. Read through the book with them and teach them to read with discernment. Obviously, this would only be for youth that can discern. But it may be a valuable exercise in their spiritual maturity.

If you’re interested, here’s the trailer for the movie. Speaking of just cinematic quality, it looks pretty good. All I have to say is from the moment I was introduced to what Nicole Kidman’s character would be, I knew she would play the part perfectly.

Advertisements

27 comments on ““The Golden Compass” by Philip Pullman: Reader Beware?

  1. Tom Gilson says:

    Did you notice at the end that Dust–original sin–is the empowerment behind the alethiometer? The alethiomter–from the Greek for “truth” and “to measure–is a device referred to as a “teller of truth.” No character in the book is trustworthy, but this device is. The truth teller is powered by Dust–by sin, in other words.

    Did you also know that the movie and the book are being heavily promoted by the Scholastic publishing house as teaching materials for public schools? Watch out for what your children are being assigned to read…

  2. mek1980 says:

    What they don’t tell you are the countless lives lost to atheist tyrants such as Pol Pot, Marx, Stalin, Slobodan Milosevic, Lenin, and Mao Tse-Tung. All were dictators. All were tyrants. All were atheists.

    And what you’re not telling people is the fundamental difference – that Stalin et al murdered in the name of their totalitarian political regimes, not their Atheism. Although at least you were good enough not to throw in the old canard of Hitler.

  3. ehudadams says:

    But they were Atheists. You can’t really kill something in the name of something that doesn’t exist. But their Atheist belief structure greatly influenced them. All I’m saying is that neither side is innocent and we have to go deeper than making rash, broad characterizations. And I didn’t throw Hitler in there because he wasn’t, from what I can tell, an Atheist. I try to be fair and balanced. Thanks for your comment!

  4. mek1980 says:

    First thing – there is no such thing as an Atheist belief structure. The only thing common to any group of Atheists is disbelief (and even that comes in several varieties). You can have Republican Atheists, even. Some Atheists are pro-life; others are pro-choice. The point is, there is no belief structure in place.

    Now, back to the main thrust; their Atheism may well have influenced these men; but the context was Atheist claims that people were killed in the name of various gods (an argument I personally dislike, as it has little to do with the actual veracity of an argument, which is what we’re interested in).

    Given that Atheism cannot in any sense be called unified, I think it’s simply incorrect to even call it a side. However, even if it were accurate to do so, as I said above, the veracity of a claim does not lie in its followers behaviour.

  5. the idea that anything can be “anti-god” is funny, it’s like saying, “i’m going to stop thinking about GOD right now, i am not thinking about GOD!” this book is kindof like that. the Golden compass has as much chance of killing God as a fly might knock over Mt. Everest. (killing God is a theme in the book)

    it’s awesome how every action men take to resist God ends up strengthening His cause… goes to show how puny men’s efforts are at resisting Him.

  6. Bryan Andrews says:

    Nicely put Patrick.

  7. Eli Donnell says:

    I do agree with some of the points made by the author of this article but not everything said. I believe that we should let kids read what they want to an extent. I may only be 17 myself, but I feel our youth should not be sheltered and pushed into closemindedness. As parents, yes, you should screen the materials and media that your children have, again, to an extent. A child’s maturity should determine the things the read, watch and play, not the parent’s religion. My mother is a Lutheran, I was taken to church every Sunday. I never had the “connection” to God that people speak of. My whole life though, my parents have allowed me to read just about anything I’ve wanted to. I feel that I have gained an open mind and matured into a much better person because I was able to be introduced into such literature as ‘His Dark Materials’ series and also the ‘Left Behind’ series. Reading a book doesn’t make you suddenly change your worldly perspective unless your mind is not strong enough to be reading that book. I don’t remember Atheists getting upset and petitioning the ‘Left Behind’ movies and books. It just seems to me that they are more open minded. I guess not all of us can be that lucky.

  8. IAS says:

    Oh, the movie is bad is it? Have you seen an advance screening? Or are you simply judging it based on what you’ve read from other people who haven’t seen it?

    Yes, The Golden Compass is based on a book that was written by an atheist. Yes the book is critical of the Church. That makes it a bad movie? A dangerous movie? Since when do a person’s beliefs determine the quality of their work?

    The movie, like the book, is a work of art. No more, no less. When people go around calling for a boycott of the film- which the Catholic League is currently doing- they look about as ridiculous as the school boards that banned Kurt Vonnegut books in the 1970s. (The Catholic League also urged an equally idiotic boycott of “The Da Vinci Code” last year. That one was apparently going to poison our minds as well.)

    In fact, the novel was just pulled from an Ontario Catholic school district’s library shelves over a complaint about the author referring to himself as an atheist. For the record, Edgar Allan Poe was an atheist. Should we ban his books and movies as well? Let’s not forget George Orwell- he was agnostic and scorned churches.

    Put aside the hyperbole for a moment and look at the facts: The Golden Compass is a prestigious, award-winning novel that has been read for years by millions of children around the globe.

    FYI, the novel was voted the best children’s book in the past 70 years by readers across the globe in June, based on a selection of 10 past winners of the Carnegie Medal for children’s literature. The books outsell the Harry Potter books in many parts of the world including in Great Britain. I guess the millions of children who have already read the books are doomed to a godless eternity.

    Are we to believe a mere movie could turn children into atheists?

  9. ehudadams says:

    Eli- Thank you for your comment! First of all, please don’t bring up the Left Behind series. Not every Christian is incredibly proud about that series. From a strictly literature perspective, I’m sure the Dark Materials blows it socks off.

    Second, I would encourage parents read the book with their kids. I was just saying that I don’t think children should read it because of some of the content (speaking of drilling holes in heads, eating brains, and then the traumatic story line of torturing children). And I wouldn’t necessarily be afraid of one book changing a world perspective, but what’s more important is teaching our children how to discern what they read. Thanks again for your comments!

    IAS- Did I ever say that you shouldn’t see the movie? And I don’t think you can say that it is a piece of art. Art is very subjective and can be interpreted in different ways. With art, you stand before the piece and make of it what you will. Literature is VERY different, and largely objective. Pullman DOES have a mission. He DOES have an agenda, and that is to spread Atheism and attack Christianity and the Church.

    What you must understand is that the Catholic Church is calling for the boycott, like they did with Da Vinci Code, because they are the obvious targets of this book. Mind you, I’m not Catholic, but you can’t really hold it against them for raising a fuss since they are just defending themselves. And the difference between Poe and Pullman is Poe never said, “My books are about killing God.” Pullman has an agenda. His work is not subjective or just an innocent children’s book.

    And if you actually read what I wrote, I spoke of how they book was very successful. It has received many awards, and I acknowledge this. But just because it has received awards doesn’t mean that it is the greatest book. I read it. It was good. It was a read that I largely enjoyed. Is it the best children’s book of the last 70 years? I don’t think so, and I don’t need a board of people who probably have an anti-Christian agenda telling me that.

    This post was all about encouraging discernment. I’m not about burning books or boycotting things. But I am all about using discernment as Christians and not just ingesting everything the world feeds us. It sounds like you are confusing my review for someone else’s, because I think it’s impossible for you to come to make some of the comments you made by reading this post.

  10. IAS says:

    We can’t say that The Golden Compass is a piece of art?

    Of course it is art. It is art with content you do not approve of.

    A book, film, play, photograph or painting doesn’t just stop becoming art because you don’t approve of the content.

    And the book was not voted best children’s novel of the last 70 years by a “board of people … with an anti-Christian agenda”.

    Making ignorant statements like that just lessens your credibility. The book won the award based on a Public Vote by readers thoughout the world in North America, Europe, Asia and Australia.

    And it won by a landslide.

    The Catholic League issued a similarly ill-conceived boycott last year with the release of “The Da Vinci Code”. It went on to become one of the highest grossing films of the year.

  11. ehudadams says:

    it can be a display of artistic expression, but not like a painting. Did I say that I didn’t think it was a piece of art because I disapproved of its content? You seem to be very eager to put words into my mouth. I said I don’t think it is a ‘piece of art’ as far as a painting goes, because it really isn’t open for interpretation. That doesn’t mean that writing can’t be artistic expression, but whatever is in writing is much more objective than subjective.

    As far as the voting is concerned, I’m not a conspiracy theorist or anything, but I do recognize that many things become popular just because it has an anti-Christian bent to it. And just because people tell me its amazing, doesn’t mean that I have to think it is amazing literature. Maybe I’m more old fashioned and pine for things that weren’t written in the last 20 years.

    You seem to think that popularity = truth. Because the majority hail it as something, doesn’t necessarily mean anything. And the Catholic League boycotting it wasn’t intended for people like you. They don’t really expect for you to listen to them. But they have a group of followers, who though I often disagree with them, look to the League to let them know if there is something they find objectionable.

    What is curious in all of this was that I actually liked the book. Sure, there was content in it that I object to and would caution against, but I never called for a boycott. I never said it was a horrible book. I never even said we should boycott the movie. In fact, I’m bringing a group of students to watch it and we’re going to talk about the worldviews expressed in the movie afterwards. That’s what I would encourage here. The reality is that atheism is a growing movement in the world, with the increasing popularity of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, and I don’t think Christians should just yell “heresy!” and put their heads in the sand. I think we should hear it out and discuss what we find objectionable about it. I’m into encouraging discernment. I don’t know what you could find wrong with that.

  12. IAS says:

    “It really isn’t open to interpretation.”

    Really?

    I do not, as you say, “think that popularity = truth” nor have I ever implied that. I merely pointed out the inaccuracies in your post about the accolades the book had received – you had it wrong.

    And I’m not sure to whom you are referring when you say “people like you”.

    Do you mean educated people with minds of their own?

  13. ehudadams says:

    My temptation is to respond with another sarcastic comment, but I can’t. The truth is that I think you misunderstand my post. I had mentioned that the book is lauded:

    “The book won the Carnegie Medal for children’s fiction in the UK in 1995, and in 2007 it was selected by judges of the Carnegie Medal as one of the ten most important children’s novels of the past 70 years. (info from wikipedia) The third book in the series won the Whitbread Prize in 2001, the first children’s book to do so. And more recently the first book made it on Al Roker’s book reading club’s book list.”

    And what I meant by ‘people like you’ was people who really don’t care about the Catholic League. The Catholic League declares boycotts for the people that listen to them. I didn’t say ‘people like you’ in a condescending manner, more to say that you are not their target audience, and they don’t expect people like to listen to them. They are more of a service for people who share the values that they hold to. Didn’t mean it as a put down.

  14. IAS says:

    I want to know why you said:

    “It really isn’t open to interpretation.”

  15. ehudadams says:

    there is, of course, some literature, mostly poetry, that is open to interpretation, where it is not obvious what the author was trying to convey. A lot of artwork (paintings) is open to interpretation as to what the artist was trying to convey. Some allegories take time to understand and interpret, but I don’t think that this is the case. From reading the book, it is obvious that Pullman had an agenda to discredit the Church and Christianity.

  16. Eli Donnell says:

    On a side note, I really did enjoy the ‘Left Behind’ books. Both the children’s and adult’s series. I personally think that everyone should read them. I don’t see why the Christians would not be happy with them. But then again, I do not know a whole lot about Chrisitanity.
    I’m sorry if this seems like, well, a naive statement, but I don’t understand why the Catholic League would want to boycott the movie, or the books. I can understand why some parents would want to hold off on letting their children read it due to the graphic nature. Like you said, the whole head drilling and torture thing, that really is not appropriate for children.
    I feel that if they begin boycotting with these books that are, for most people, entertainment, where will they stop? I remember a television show, ‘The Book of Daniel’ I think it was called, was pulled because the Christian outcry because of silly things like the Priest having a homosexual son. I just don’t think that because a select group of people don’t like something, that they should call for a boycott of a book, movie, television show, or sponsors of them. This is America, founded on religious freedom afterall. Why should we allow media that depict Christianity in a glorious light, but not in a negative light, when we allow media that depicts Pegans, Wiccas, Athiests and Satanists in a negative light? I’m not saying that all the media about Pegans, Wiccas, Athiests and Satanists shows them from a negative point of view, don’t be confused by that statement. I would just like to point out that we as Americans have many freedoms, with religion being one of them.
    I understand the Catholic League being for people with similar values, but why is it necessary to go on national television and say that ” ” is a horrible book because it brings Atheism into a positive light, and says that God should die. I think that is going too far. It is okay to say to a group of people with the same values, but all it does saying that on television is create controversy. It is just the author or creator of the different medias own opinion. When people create something, they put a part of themselves into it.
    I personally feel that we should just let it be. If we don’t agree with the message or with the content, lets just not watch it, read it or go to it.

  17. ehudadams says:

    Eli- its not necessarily the content of the Left Behind books, I actually agree with a lot of the content. But the sad thing was that many people would read through the 8 or whatever books, but not actually read through the book of Revelation. A point of frustration that I have with many Christians is that they don’t read the really good Christian books, instead they fill up on stuff like that. Its nothing I have against Tim LaHaye or Jerry Jenkins, more with the fact that the people reading the books generally don’t take the time to read good, meaty books. There’s a lot of really good, life changing stuff out there that gets ignored for the ‘lighter’ things.

    But anyways, I get what you are saying about the boycott thing. Personally, I don’t like it when people call for boycotts. I get the emails and stuff about boycotting businesses or events, but I don’t get involved in those things. The Catholic League will do what they consider best for them and their followers. And I don’t think it is necessarily the fact that they care that it brings Atheism into a good light, but the fact that it brings them into a bad light.

    If someone made a movie about Buddhists, or God forbid, Islam, and they thought it was slanderous against them, then they would have every right in the world to cry out against it.

    This nation was built on religious freedom, yes. But it was also built on free speech, and that includes the ability to protest something you don’t like. That religious freedom is only in danger when the federal or local government intercedes and says, “no, you can’t show this movie.”

    I can see how you would just want to let it be, but you have to understand, that the accusations and insinuations written in these three books can be very offensive to people. These people care very much for the Church, and when someone comes out and writes things to cast them in a bad light, then they will react. they have something they think is worth fighting for and you can’t fault them for that.

    Finally, I would say that the Catholic League didn’t create the controversy, Pullman did. The Catholic League is just bringing to light these things and trying to show people that these are innocent accusations, but something they take very seriously.

  18. Eli Donnell says:

    I get that. I just wish that we should all just learn to get along. People will say bad things about eachother because of opinions. Yeah, sure, I guess you could say it’s human nature. Seriously though people, lets all just learn to take everything with a grain of salt. I hate to see people fight over something as petty as a ‘he says she says’ kind of thing such as this. Pullman really should not have come out and said the things he did, so he is probably more at fault than the Catholic League. I kinda think they should have tried to be bigger than him, which we all know they probably are, and just let it go. I can see them telling their people about the content and his views on things, but I think they create a negative view for themselves when the come out swinging with their statements in the media. I don’t really know. I guess I will just sit back and watch what happens. I will definately be going to see the movie regardless, but I would really hope that people will keep an open mind, and go to see the movie if it looks good to them, and not see it if it looks as though they won’t enjoy it. Just because the author of the book has a differing opinion, doesn’t have to mean that the cinematic version will.

  19. ehudadams says:

    i hear your concern, but the big deal is that, from our perspective, eternity hangs in the balance. My top priority isn’t that you become aware of atheism and you boycott a movie, but that embrace the Gospel. the whole ‘get along’ idea can only go so far when I look at a world full of people who are going to Hell. That doesn’t make me happy at all, I don’t gain any pleasure from that fact. INstead, it drives me to share the Gospel with the lost, call truth, truth, and a lie, a lie. in the end, I would rather you hear the Gospel and know what is true rather than a lie than you like me and us get along. that doesn’t mean that I seek to be offensive, but I realize that if I preach the Gospel as I’m called to, that people will get offended. the apostle Paul wrote that the cross is an offense and a stumbling block to those that don’t believe. It’s foolishness to a world that rejects it. But that foolishness is how God chose to offer salvation to a world that refuses to repent and believe in him.

    I understand what you are saying, but eternity is huge, and where you spend eternity is a huge deal. It can’t be shrunk down to a piece of salt. That doesn’t mean that if you see this movie (which by the way I intend to do) that you are going to Hell, but what it does mean is that if you believe what is true, then you will. That is why I am willing to be ridiculed, laughed at, scorned, mocked, derided, spit upon, yelled at, and, if God should see fit, beaten or killed, on account of the Gospel.

  20. Mike says:

    Ah, come on… Pascal’s Wager? Really? Yeesh.

    That is why I am willing to be ridiculed, laughed at, scorned, mocked, derided, spit upon, yelled at, and, if God should see fit, beaten or killed, on account of the Gospel.

    Oh, good. Now I don’t have to feel bad about it.

  21. ehudadams says:

    I don’t believe in Pascal’s wager. and lets define that so we know what we’re talking about. I don’t think you should believe in God because you stand to lose more if God actually does exist then if he doesn’t exist and your belief was for naught.

    if that’s what we agree Pascal’s Wager being, then i totally disagree with it. I don’t think anyone is saved because they are hedging their bets on God existing. I think faith isn’t ‘hoping’ God exists. People are saved by repenting of their sins, acknowledging they have trespassed a holy God, and relying on the righteousness of Christ to pay the penalty of their sins. I think for someone to say they will believe in God because they’d be a lot worse off than if they didn’t and it turns out God actually does exist, then that says that they aren’t really struck by their sin.

    I don’t believe in God because I was going to Hell and I don’t want to go there. I believe in God because He is holy and righteous and deserves my praise. But God is gracious to forgive my sins, give me the grace to live my life for His honor, and spend eternity with Him.

    and I never asked you to feel bad for me. “For I am convinced that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.” Romans 8:18

  22. IAS says:

    The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops gave the film a warm review, describing it as “intelligent and well-crafted entertainment”.

    Did you know that?

    They also said the film is not blatantly anti-Christian but a “generalized rejection of authoritarianism.”

    It turns out The Golden Compass is open to interpretation after all, isn’t it? even among Catholics.

    So either you’re being purposely obtuse, or you truly don’t understand the nature of art and literature.

    Either way, you are missing the point entirely.

  23. Beth says:

    IAS, you seem to be very good at dodging the central point and arguing the periphery. The point is that Christians who are concerned about the eternal destination of their own children or children they are ministering to will do everything in their power to show them the light. The Compass is another cleverly crafted attractive media event based on material conceived from a man who hates God and His people. Parents or teachers who work with kids want to guide them through a world of Satan’s lies.

    The world can have their art and literature. Christians can read and watch what they want. Parents and teachers of the Word are held accountable to those in their care.

    I would even be careful to label Christians as people who believe in God. Satan believes in God. Satan understands God’s holiness, justice, power. Yet Satan be thrown into the lake of fire. Christians are those who understand their sin and what they truly deserve, and put their faith in attaining righteousness through Jesus.

    The Bible says that there are no athiests. That all men wittness God’s glory through creation, but only a few have been chosen to be enabled not to reject Him. Our ability to know God and accept Him is given by God, not something we earned or are more “spiritual”. No one seeks God. Because I believe God’s Word, I agree there are no such thing as athiests, but instead, men who reject Christ.

  24. Mike says:

    if that’s what we agree Pascal’s Wager being, then i totally disagree with it.

    Fair do’s. Just sounded that way.

    I never asked you to feel bad for me.

    That was a joke…

  25. ehudadams says:

    IAS- did they say the same thing about the book? I’d be curious to see, because as I’ve said earlier and as I figured, the movie is tamed down a bit in the areas where the book would be confrontational or divisive.

  26. Adam12 says:

    I just wanted to mention a few things:

    For starters, Catholic Church’s call for a boycott is completely rational when you consider where they are coming from. Put yourself in thier shoes: What would you do if your worst enemy decided to write a book or make a movie that was basically a testament of his disdain, disapproval, and hatred towards you? I think it is safe to say that a person would be angered and naturally speak out against it. You would want to keep your good name and not have your friends and family influenced by an extremely opinionated and biased source. The Catholic Church is doing just that. The Church’s enemy, atheism, is attacking their customs, beliefs, and traditions in order to stir up the emotions of their followers. it is only natural for the Catholic Church to do everything it can to prevent its followers from being tainted.

    Secondly, I think it is perfectly fine to appreciate the book and movie for thier artistic value. The plot can still be mentally stimulating and entertaining despit what the underlying message maybe. In school you read countless books that contain subject matter you don’t agree with like murder, racism, and sex, but you can still appreciate the literary value of the work. Because of this, I think it is ok for a person that is Catholic to say “I enjoyed the storyline and found the book envigorating, but I firmly disagree with everything the author says, believes, and is trying to convey.”

    Thirdly, parents have the right to want to censor their children from the book. The author did blatantly say his books were about killing God and that can be hard for young children to process. But, I do think the movie and book could be a great way to open the door of communication to discuss the issues presented. Parents can talk to their kids about the things they believe and why certain things in the movie go against that. It is a great way for Christian parents to teach children why they believe what they believe. And you never know, maybe a kid will be so fired up from the movie that he will come out with a stronger reason to believe in whatever he believes in

  27. Anonymous says:

    i think also people must put themselves in the catholics shoes n think on how also would’ve reacted..what i fail to understand y all other christian groups don’t stand up coz obviously there’s a large number of them who just went silent and now to other people catholics r.wat i also fail to understand is people not mentioning that this is blasphemy n its repeatedly promoted n people stand up n watch while we we would’ve obviously seen other groups making a good fight.n not only christins believe there’

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s