PDA

View Full Version : Ethical situation: Two perspectives on "The Golden Compass" and Christians


psychboi85
12-20-2007, 05:56 PM
“While I embrace the fundamental truth that we are to be in the world but not of it, when are we blurring the line in supporting an author of atheistic propaganda?
I agree entirely with your premise. We are sheep among wolves.
When is being in the appearance of evil defined?
When is tolerance wrong?
Yet as Christians we have to consider a couple of things that in 1st and 2nd timothy relate to us about being stumbling blocks for our brothers and for non believers.
A) In funding Pullman’s work we are communicating that we enjoyed it and support it. It’s a trade; we pay him to supply us with that content.
This argument is the same ethical principle as Christians and alcohol.
While it is permissible, to drink, drunkenness is a sin.
SO the problem is threefold. And only if it passes these three rules it allows us to do it.

-It does not affect our testimony (past alcoholism, friends who are younger, weaker brother argument)
-It is legal. (Obeying authority)
- It is glorifying to God”

The previous text is one person's opinion on how Christians should approach the controversial film "The Golden Compass".

What a tricky scenario to be in. On one hand, a “good” Christian does not want to support the anti-God, atheistic material because it might affect his testimony. On the other hand, boycotting the movie, for whatever the reason, has him written off as a crazy fundamentalist, which seems equally damaging to this said testimony. What is the right thing to do?

According to this person’s perspective, there are 3 rules that determine whether or not something is “ok”
1.) It does not affect our outward testimony
2.) It is not illegal
3.) It is glorifying to God

Though simple as it sounds, two of these rules are ineffective, leaving one of these rules as being the sole determiner of whether or not something is the “right” thing to do.


Our outward testimony: to Catch a Stumbler


This has become one of Christianity’s great clichés. What exactly is a “testimony” and how can we make others “stumble”? For many, a testimony is a public profession of their faith or religious experience. For the legal system, testimony is a written or oral statement used as evidence to give in court. In either case, it is proof of something. The “proof” is some outward indication for others to see and come to the same conclusion. Though James 2:14 cautions us about “faith without works” is the overwhelming principle in the Bible for Christians to follow, “Be careful of what you do and how it will reflect on others?”

One of the most important verses in the Bible is found in 1 Samuel 16, “Looks aren't everything. Don't be impressed with his looks and stature. I've already eliminated him. GOD judges persons differently than humans do. Men and women look at the face; GOD looks into the heart." These words are taken straight from God. In Matthew 23, Jesus often laments the Pharisees and their condition. They have cleaned and polished the outside of their cup, but the inside is full of maggots and rot. They are like an elaborate sarcophagus; beautifully decorated on the outside, but on the inside, nothing but death and lifelessness. The truth that is to be gleaned from this is that outward appearance means very little to God. Jesus instead emphasizes in John 13:35, “This is how everyone will recognize that you are my disciples – when they see the love you have for each other”. Our internal motivations are what matter the most to God.

This business of making a weaker person stumble is very perplexing to me. I believe the person meant to reference chapters in Romans, not the books of Timothy, when alluding to being a “stumbling block” to others. To believe that we have the capability of making others stumble in their walk is to believe in an external locus of control. We can’t accept the blame for much of our wrong doing, because there are cases where others “made” us do it. Weak people believe that they are not in control of their choices, and to promote this belief of having the power to make others stumble perpetuates weak Christianity. God is a God of options. Though people may be tempted, and we may be instruments of temptation to others, God does not just let people blindly fall into temptation. We are told that God provides a means of escape with every tempting scenario. God is a being of free choice and free will. Nothing forces God to do anything. We, being made in the image of God, have this freedom of choice. God many times is seen as giving man options. Deuteronomy 30:19 is one of my favorite verses to echo this point, God says, “I place before you Life and Death, Blessing and Curse. Choose Life…” Interestingly enough, Jesus is referenced as being a type of “stumbling block” to others in 1 Peter 2:8, “To you who trust him, he's a Stone to be proud of, but to those who refuse to trust him…They trip and fall because they refuse to obey, as they were destined to do.”



If it’s not against the Law, it’s not against the Lord


If something is not illegal, does that automatically imply that it is “right”? Another way to look at it is this, if something is illegal, does that automatically imply that it is “wrong”? Let’s think of some examples that may disprove this initial obvious truth.
People every day meet in secret underground churches to worship God, even though it is illegal to do so.
Is this right?
People hid Jews in their homes during the Holocaust even though it was illegal.
Was that right?

To believe that if it is not illegal, it is ok limits God – and coincidentally our capacity to serve God – by the narrow constraints of the law.

Paul reminds us of an important thought in Romans 4-10: “Moses wrote that anyone who insists on using the law code to live right before God soon discovers it's not so easy—every detail of life regulated by fine print! But trusting God to shape the right living in us is a different story…It's the word of faith that welcomes God to go to work and set things right for us. That's it. You're not "doing" anything; you're simply calling out to God, trusting him to do it for you. That's salvation. With your whole being you embrace God setting things right, and then you say it, right out loud: ‘God has set everything right between him and me!’ ” Even more important to realize is what Paul says in Galatians 5:18, “If you are lead by the Spirit, no law can touch you.”

We have to be careful that we don’t limit God to just what the Bible “says” (whatever that means), because to do that essentially means we are “killing God” as the characters do in this controversial film. The Bible is nothing but neutral words on a page, capable of saying anything and everything a person would wish it to – but not on its own. The Bible is nothing new to us, but its’ spirit is newly heard. God is still speaking. Many of us Christians have fallen into a path of idolatry. No, we’re not worshiping a golden calf or Baal, but we are worshiping the Bible and the Church. Both of these have important roles, but neither of them was meant to take the place of God. They are meant to point back to the one it is all about!

My understanding of God is based strictly on the sense that while God sent Jesus to die for everyone, it is not enough to believe that fact. I must believe it on a more personal, individual level. Jesus died for me. The focus is, once again, brought back to the individual, not the masses. God’s relationship with me is all that matters. God’s relationship with others does not apply to me. We humans, each being completely different from one another, could not possibly relate to God in the same way, because none of us are the same person. We find ourselves in the same condition – lost and in need of something bigger than ourselves to save us – but it is an individual experience that we cannot compare equally with one another. We are God’s sheep, but we were never called to ignorantly or blindly follow. If we accept that God died for us all – individually, and believe that God longs for a personal and individual relationship with us, we must be careful that we not try to project that which is our special connection with God as being the only way one can relate to God.


Facts or Faith: Lead me and I will follow


All of this comes down to one single element: Faith. Faith is a terrifying experience for us. We long for categorization – left, right; in, out; good, bad; black, white. However, so few things that matter in this world are simply deduced to this. Faith is the ability to wade out all that is grey in life, knowing that God is there in that grey with you. It is my belief that there is absolute truth, and since each of us is related to God on the level of the individual – not the group, many times this “absolute truth” is relative. It stands to reason that since our relationship with God is not a collective relationship, but a personal one, there are going to be individual – not collective- obstacles in this relationship, and individual boundaries that will have to be maintained. Paul alludes to this in Romans 14:5 “ One person thinks that some days should be set aside as holy and another thinks that each day is pretty much like any other. There are good reasons either way. So, each person is free to follow the convictions of conscience. What's important in all this is that if you keep a holy day, keep it for God's sake; if you eat meat, eat it to the glory of God and thank God for prime rib; if you're a vegetarian, eat vegetables to the glory of God and thank God for broccoli. None of us are permitted to insist on our own way in these matters. It's God we are answerable to—all the way from life to death and everything in between—not each other."


The person who wrote the introductory statement about how to know whether or not it is ok to do something is mistaken in all of the guidelines with the exception of one key element: “It is glorifying to God”. Unfortunately, that direction is extremely vague. What brings God glory? Cain thought bringing God produce from his farm would bring God glory, but God did not accept it. Again, it all comes down to the individual’s motivations, not the outward acts. And unless we, as the individual, are aware of who or what is motivating us, and how that affects our personal relationship with God, it will be hit or miss.

So how, then, are we to approach an issue such as "Should I, as a Christian, see the Golden Compass?"

There are three things we must consider before making a decision, none of which are indicative of the ultimate "right" answer for everyone:
1.) What is motivating me to do this?
2.) By doing this, what would be the effect on my relationship with God?
3.) Taking 1 and 2 into account, can I, in good conscience, do this?

If you have to struggle with any or all of these steps, perhaps the answer is there and you are unwilling to see it.

Alecto
12-21-2007, 01:32 AM
I ask the question: do you see a difference between choosing not to watch said movie (and, should you have children, restricting their viewing as well) and "boycotting" said movie?

psychboi85
12-21-2007, 02:24 PM
I ask the question: do you see a difference between choosing not to watch said movie (and, should you have children, restricting their viewing as well) and "boycotting" said movie?

There is a difference. Boycotting carries such a political connotation, where as making a personal decision - whether it conflicts with your beliefs, you think the special effects will be too frightening for the kids, or you just don't have the money to see it -whatever the choice is a private matter, not public action. I guess it comes down to motivation.

Daniel
12-21-2007, 06:49 PM
But this whole fuss about the Golden Compass (and I am going to see it soon) seems rather STUPID and SILLY. Why? It's a STORY for God's sake. Did anyone say it was the Word Of God? Huh? What are people going to do next? Start burning books because it threatens their small egos? ? Jeesh! I want to tell these people who are all up in arms: get a life!

They (who are treating the movie and the books associated with it) act is if the Golden Compass was some kind of gospel. Well....it isn't. Again: it's a story! The people who hate it so much have their own gospel. That should be enough. But no! They have to crush everything that runs counter to their 'beliefs'. Oh ye of little faith. A story in a book seems to be able to overturn their world. Makes one wonder just what their 'faith' is make of. Fragile? Handle with Care?

:rolleyes:

Don't like the story? Got write your own.

antonyh
12-22-2007, 01:14 AM
What a tricky scenario to be in. On one hand, a “good” Christian does not want to support the anti-God, atheistic material because it might affect his testimony. On the other hand, boycotting the movie, for whatever the reason, has him written off as a crazy fundamentalist, which seems equally damaging to this said testimony. What is the right thing to do?

What is the right thing to do?

Learn from Atheists. Make friends with Atheists. Look at your faith through the the eyes of Atheists. They have important things to teach religious people. Like this guy and his piece titled "Was Jesus Gay?"

If you're offended, Daniel made me put my entry back online :lol: Sorry, my repost is not NEARLY as funny as the original.

ReYfDlIa-Z8

Alecto
12-22-2007, 03:49 PM
But this whole fuss about the Golden Compass (and I am going to see it soon) seems rather STUPID and SILLY. Why? It's a STORY for God's sake. Did anyone say it was the Word Of God? Huh? What are people going to do next? Start burning books because it threatens their small egos? ? Jeesh! I want to tell these people who are all up in arms: get a life!

They (who are treating the movie and the books associated with it) act is if the Golden Compass was some kind of gospel. Well....it isn't. Again: it's a story! The people who hate it so much have their own gospel. That should be enough. But no! They have to crush everything that runs counter to their 'beliefs'. Oh ye of little faith. A story in a book seems to be able to overturn their world. Makes one wonder just what their 'faith' is make of. Fragile? Handle with Care?

:rolleyes:

Don't like the story? Got write your own.

That was actually why I asked what I did. Because, I agree with you: boycotting THIS movie is ridiculous. And, frankly, given the content of the movie, it only serves to prove the author's point. (It is enjoyable, btw, but not nearly as good as the book. The ending just didn't even make sense to be an ending, but w/e). I don't criticize anyone for saying "well, I'm not going to pay money to see if this is offensive to me or not. I've heard it probably is, so until I hear otherwise from a trusted source, it's not on my to do list". For a full-on political boycott, though, I feel like you need a better reason than "OMG there's beliefs espoused that aren't mine!". Offensive portrayals are a good reason for boycott. Exploitative business practices of the film company are a good reason for boycott. Etc.

Progo35
12-22-2007, 07:46 PM
I don't think that the movie has to be boycotted or that it is bad, but it is clear that the guy who wrote it was responding to the Narnia books, which he says he hates. This was in an interview with USA today about a year ago. (No, I'm not going to post the link, because I don't have time, if it's that important to you, look it up....I just don't care enough about this particular issue to worry about backing up what I'm saying here. If you're interested, go look, if you're not, don't.) In any sense, I do think there are much more important issues out there that need our attention.

scott snedeker
12-24-2007, 10:32 AM
Both The Chronicles of Narnia and The Golden Compass are rich tales thoroughly and equally saturated with pagan symbolism and messages. They are of the most pagan films in present cinema! I love them both!

Clearly there are all of Pan's children represented in Narnia, fauns (Mr. Tumnis), Centaurs, faeries, nymphs and many others even tree spirits. Ulta druidic! Just my type of paganism by the way! While the Golden Compass has familiars which represent connection to the soul through living creatures.

They both send the messages to fight oppression and thought control of dogmatic autocratic theocracy that promotes hatred of and disconnection from self.

They are both Christ-like (and pagan) in their messages and both anti-religious establishment in their morality play.

Boycotting either is boycotting unconditional love of self and others; it is boycotting the teachings of Christ and Earth spirirtuality.

Why am I not surrpised? Torquemada would be pleased!

Daniel
12-24-2007, 10:55 AM
I don't think that the movie has to be boycotted or that it is bad, but it is clear that the guy who wrote it was responding to the Narnia books, which he says he hates. This was in an interview with USA today about a year ago. (No, I'm not going to post the link, because I don't have time, if it's that important to you, look it up....I just don't care enough about this particular issue to worry about backing up what I'm saying here. If you're interested, go look, if you're not, don't.) In any sense, I do think there are much more important issues out there that need our attention.

So why did you post about this issue? Because you're offended that the author 'hate's' the Narnia books?

Know what bothers me? Those who are gatuitous with their condemnation of an author they've never read.

As Anthony has noted (you're right- the original post was hilarious!), there is a lot to be gained from our fellow human beings called atheists.

paul
12-24-2007, 11:34 AM
So why did you post about this issue? Because you're offended that the author 'hate's' the Narnia books?

Know what bothers me? Those who are gatuitous with their condemnation of an author they've never read.

As Anthony has noted (you're right- the original post was hilarious!), there is a to to be gained from our fellow human beings called atheists.

Daniel,

I saw Golden Compass yesterday, it was very entertaining.

Interesting that the Narnia books, C.S.Lewis, comes up. I remember getting the collection for my kids when they were little. My wife wanted them burned because they had witches in them (she has since reversed her position :lol: and is now a great fan of Lewis). As you point out, she hadn't read them. I think many a fundamental eyebrow would be raised if they knew that one of Lewis' books ("That Hideous Strength") has Merlin the magician as the hero (Merlin was a pagan sorcerer). I suspect that many are not only guilty of not reading the literature of infidels, they often haven't read their own stuff.

Progo35
12-24-2007, 01:37 PM
No, I just have more important things to do in 3D, Daniel. But, since my family is napping right now and I have nothing to do right now, with having my plans set for an upcoming vigil and several classes, I think I will post some links. Here they are:

http://www.moreintelligentlife.com/node/697
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Pullman
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2007-11-28-compass-controversy_N.htm

Now, does hating the Narnia books mean that Pullman's work shouldn't be available to the public or that we shouldn't read his work? No! But, for every religious bigot, there's an athiest or secular one, and being truly educated about any literary work involves being aware of its context and/or the author's perspective on reality.

I'm planning to see the Golden Compass if I can get to the theatre over break. It sounds like the story itself might be really good and raise interesting philosophical issues. But, I don't think that those in the Christian community who are planning to boycott the film are the enemies of free speech: they are simply excercising their right to freedom of speech and conscience, which does not prevent others from seeing this film.

tymejumper
12-24-2007, 04:26 PM
But this whole fuss about the Golden Compass (and I am going to see it soon) seems rather STUPID and SILLY. Why? It's a STORY for God's sake.



THANKYOU!!!! Its about time someone saw some reason. :rolleyes: The same bulllarkey happened with Harry Potter. Its a story, and if it bears resemblence to real life or a religion, so be it. Get over it.

I guess atheists are not allowed to write literature for children? I guess following this line of thought would cause us to believe that if an atheist can't write a childs story, because it is not safe for children(lord help us they may actually THINK for themselves)then perhaps we need to pass a law to have all the biological children taken form atheists, nor should we let them adopt, they are obviously a danger to children.

Not only that, but atheists are obviously trying to recruit children over to their immoral lifestyle, we need to stop that.(look at the movie!)We should not alow them to be alone with children. We should also not let atheists get married because they are undermining the family value system of the country, its all based on God you know. Maybe we should be able fire them also, we don't want this type of immortality in the work place, they may pass their belief along and ruin a bussiness. Clients may find out they are atheist and then chose not to do buisness with a company that actually employs atheists. This could destroy the company profit. They also should not be able to serve in the Army, after all, if dying on the battle field, the fact that they won't be praying to God may actually destroy the moral of a unit and imagine, having to shower with one of them or bunk with one of them! After all, God may chose to strike them dead and anyone in the vicinity....that could cause problems for the Army.

Sound familiar to anyone on Soulforce? Yes, it's called ignorance and prejudice, and it's the SAME THING we face EVERY DAY.

The church needs to stop running scared. And yes, I did see the movie. My wife and I did take our children to see it and they loved it. We did talk about it later and they wanted to know why the church hated it. That hate value, from the church(any surprise there?). I do admit, they did have the people look like an organized, powerful religion in dress and manor. They talk of Heresy also. The movie mentioned no particular religion, and not even that it WAS a religion that "knew what was the best for the people" and, "they had to force the people to do what was best for them".

Now, if the church choses to assign their name to the evil and powerful faction in the movie, them obviously they see themselves in it.

Progo35
12-24-2007, 05:22 PM
I do admit, they did have the people look like an organized, powerful religion in dress and manor. They talk of Heresy also. The movie mentioned no particular religion, and not even that it WAS a religion that "knew what was the best for the people" and, "they had to force the people to do what was best for them".

Now, if the church choses to assign their name to the evil and powerful faction in the movie, them obviously they see themselves in it.

But TJ, the Church did not make this all up. The author said that he wanted to refute the Narnia books and was answering them, and that the bad people in the book were at least partially based on the Catholic church. So it isn't that the Christian community "sees itself" in these books [and thus feels the to supress the exposition of such qualities.] Those who choose to boycott it are responding to what the author said, ie, it's not just their interpretation of the series: the author confirmed his feelings about Christianity, the church, and how Christian theology is conferred to children via literature.

tymejumper
12-24-2007, 06:05 PM
But TJ, the Church did not make this all up. The author said that he wanted to refute the Narnia books and was answering them, and that the bad people in the book were at least partially based on the Catholic church.



Ahhh, So now we have the basis of what they are frightened of.

Apparently, they do not want their 'dirty laundry' aired for all to see. I guess they thought they could just hide their past and their view of "what we teach is right" like they sought to hide all those child molesters in the guise of Priests.(and blame it on a 'gay' sin, instead of child rape, which is what it was). Not to mention the Spanish Inqusition and the refusal to help the Jews in the concentration camps.(they murdered Jesus, no matter it was Gods plan)

Did they think that someone, somewhere would not print their view of the church? I still stand behind they would not have anything to be concerned or frightened of if it were not true.

Perhaps, they need to stop applying religious ideals to childrens books.

Progo35
12-24-2007, 07:39 PM
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Corrie Ten Boom, and Raol Wallburg were all devout Christians who sacrificed their lives and/or families to save Jews and other victims of the holocaust. Sophie Scholl and Hans Scholl, executed with other members of the "White Rose" student nonviolent resistence group in Nazi Germany, were also devout Christians. When the euthanasia of sick and disabled people was going on, religious institutions were some of the first ones to refuse to turn over their patients to the Gestapo authorities. When the Netherlands were invaded by the Nazi forces, this nation was one of the most successful in getting most of its Jewish citizens to safety, and Christianity was prevalent in this region at that time. As for Hitler and many Nazi idealogues, they argued that "The Christian ethic of supporting even those most unworthy of life must be supplanted by a new, National Socialist ethic."-The Nazi Doctors

I could be wrong, but I don't see how the Narnia books promote the Spanish Inquisition, child molestation, or anything else like that, or how Pullman's books qualify as calling the Church on these particular blotches in its history.

tymejumper
12-25-2007, 01:46 PM
I could be wrong, but I don't see how the Narnia books promote the Spanish Inquisition, child molestation, or anything else like that, or how Pullman's books qualify as calling the Church on these particular blotches in its history.

Progo, you completely misunderstand what I am trying to point out. I was trying to say that when Pullman said his book is "in part based on the Catholic church" I believe that he was looking at the WAY the chuch operated, also their past. If you have seen the movie, they go into detail about "if a person does not do as we believe, its heresy". They attempt to punish the heretic also. Case in point, that is the cry used by the Catholic church began the Spanish Inqusition.

There are very valid reasons in the Catholic churches past that Pullman has used to base his 'evil power' on. It is obvious for one who is into history and/or theology that he has poked at the church in his book and a bit in the movie.

I was tying together the reasons, I felt, the Catholic church is so up in arms about this movie and book. They do not want their dirty laundry and past mistakes talked about. I was also noting that it seems to be the way they handle alot of problems, by trying to brush it under the carpet and then getting angry when someone holds them accountable(child molestations).

This in no way a blight on all of Christanity, just the powerful OFFICIALS of the Catholic church. I feel very sad for the Catholics who get blamed for their belief, when its really just the few powerful men/higher ups who make all the rules.(my Physical Therapist happens to be one of the outraged). Kinda like the governement, they make the rules becuase they have the power.

In reguards to Narnia, I have no idea how that even got brought into it other than Pullman said he was writting to refute it. How the bible got attached to THAT, I will never know. Same with Lord of The Rings. Its just a very bad idea to look for omens and read between the lines of any childs or adults fiction book, much less try to make it a holy or unholy work.

I certainly did not mean to offend anyone, please forgive me if I have. I only meant to have a Philisophical discussion about "The Golden Compass".

Progo35
12-25-2007, 01:53 PM
I'm not offended, TJ, as you write, it's just a discussion. Perhaps when more of us have seen the movie we can have a better discussion about the philosophical issues it raises in general. :)

tymejumper
12-25-2007, 01:57 PM
I'm not offended, TJ, as you write, it's just a discussion. Perhaps when more of us have seen the movie we can have a better discussion about the philosophical issues it raises in general. :)


:):):):):):):):):):):):)

Alecto
12-25-2007, 05:55 PM
First, Progo, if you're interested in the story, I would strongly strongly suggest reading the book. I may have mentioned (or not) that this series is one of my favorites. The reasons for that are strongly structural (I'm a very slight lit geek) and it's all stuff that didn't translate so well into the movie.

As for the airing of the Church's dirty laundry: I think that's exactly what's going on. It's not that the Narnia books painted the church as a fluffy perfect thing (and from the interview, which I"ll admit I skimmed and will go back to later, Pullman's issues with Lewis were in part with the story and having all the kids die, and in part with "the overall message" which of course makes sense). From having read the book and seen the movie, the authoritarianism of the organization in question does very much echo an earlier period in Catholic church history that did squelch free thought as "heresy". I think it's a very valid criticism of what religion CAN do to people (and possibly a warning). As for the atheist ending: of course there's an atheist ending, the dude's an atheist. I don't think there were terribly too many "cheap shots" taken, nor vicious insults.

As for dealing with Nazi Germany: there were many, many good Catholic people and organizations who took very great risks to help those they could. There is a valid criticism of silence from the Catholic Church as an international organization (for which the last Pope apologized for, if I'm not mistaken?), but the truth is I think it's all moot. I can't really think of any parallels to this particular blotch in church history in the books (or movie).

Progo35
12-26-2007, 05:16 PM
I agree with you, Alecto: although, I will say that although Pullman's book may make correlations between the Catholic hierarchy and oppression, I was responding to the idea that Christians in general did nothing to help the Jews, etc. Just off the cuff, Corrie Ten Boom, Sophie and Hans Scholl, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer were Protestants, and Bishop Galen, whose famous serman protested the euthanizing of disabled people, was Catholic. So, many different denominations were represented in this particular conflict...and, C.S.Lewis, who Pullman seems to have a lot of animosity towards, was also Protestant. So, Pullman's criticisms of oppression are not confined to the Catholic church alone, they seem to be directed at all Christians.

tdogg
01-03-2008, 10:36 PM
..I thought it was an entertaining movie with an interesting concept of animal spirit/souls for humans. It shows how we are all interconnected with nature whether we like it or not. I also got the importance of maintaining our environment for our future survival.

On a side note, as a non-fan of Nicole Kidman, I thought she did a great job as a glam villainess. Looking forward to the next one!

Now for the religious connection - a Christian/Catholic relative saw it and related the cosmic dust to original sin, so in a way the magistrates were the 'good guys'. They were trying to save the children from the 'sin' dust. I saw it as cosmic dust being knowledge/freedom, and the magistrates attempting to deprive the children of the ability to hear the truth (the compass) and therefore gain knowledge and then freedom (dust). Which, in my own opinion, is not so different from what religious fundamentalist currently attempt to do. To keep knowledge from their 'sheep' is to maintain their power and control over their 'flock'.

Anyways, interesting movie now matter how one wants to view it. Boycotting rarely works in a capitalist society. We have holes in our pockets and are addicted to entertainment no matter the cost or subject.

NathanATX
01-04-2008, 01:47 PM
If fundamentalists want to boycott it, it has to be good. :)

I wanted to see it because it seemed very Harry-Potter-esque. I liked it for the most part... though the ending was super cheesy.

The soul-animals was rather interesting for me. Every child/adult has an animal counterpart from the time they were born. For children, the "demon," as the soul-animals were called, would continually change "species" (from monkey to bird to cat, etc) until the child matured into adolescence and their demon would finally choose it's permanent shape. Some people seemed very proud of their demons because they were beautiful or powerful animals. And some seemed embarrassed by having a less-desirable demon... like a rat.

All very interesting...

tdogg
01-04-2008, 04:23 PM
Actually, they were 'daemons' instead of 'demons'. Not sure exactly the take on the spelling although of course pronunciation was the same. I liked that part too Nate!!

tymejumper
01-04-2008, 06:29 PM
Actually, they were 'daemons' instead of 'demons'. Not sure exactly the take on the spelling although of course pronunciation was the same.



I would have liked to have a companion that followed me around and that I could talk to. It was a neat concept. I especially thought it was cool that they did change shapes.(as children) You could also tell what type of person they were by seeing their Daemons. The bad people had ones that were associated with bad things, like a snake for one and an insect for another. Of course the heroes had powerful ones, like Daniel Craig(new 007) had a large white tiger or leopard(i dont remember which) that would indicate a very powerful individual.

Alecto
01-05-2008, 01:47 AM
1) Think it was a snow leopard. ;)
2) If I remember correctly, "deamon" (with the e and a connected-like) originally referred to a familiar spirit that everyone had. Kind of like the concept of "guardian angel", I guess. You can imagine how beliefs in such things ("communing with spirits") might eventually morph that word into the context of the modern meaning of "demon".