The Golden Compass is about Man's Free Will says Roger Ebert

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by J.D., Dec 10, 2007.

  1. J.D.

    J.D.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    8
  2. J.D.

    J.D.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    8
  3. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    A worldly view of a biblical concept will never paint an accurate picture.

    It is of note what is said here:
    But what do THEY mean by free-will is it the Calvinistic chant or something else? Here let us have a look:
    Note that free-will is Not about the theological concept of the C/A debates but here it is speaking of being controlled, more specifically by Religion. It is a story that we CAN do what we want, when we want, how we want to and no man or counsil of men has the right to tell us differently. In short is speaks of what I quoted above. it is against organized religion and by extention the very of God it. Not the Christian squabbles of C/A.

    In another part he states much the same:
    In essense - remove religion and we are free to be who and what we can be without the hiderance to an antiquated rule of thought and a gray headed old miser called god.
     
    #3 Allan, Dec 10, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 10, 2007
  4. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
  5. J.D.

    J.D.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    8
    Don't you think the magisterium represents God himself to the atheist author?
    I'll check back tomorrow for your response. Time for zzzz.
     
  6. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, since the author of the article and the author of the book both state it "represents organized religion" (albeit in alagory).

    By extension it will reflect toward God by those who understand the distinction but so who believe the church is religion of superstition seeking to maintain its any simblence of power it once had. But He is not outright or as blatent about the aspect of God which he is speaking of as he is with reference to organized religion.

    Again read both the article but here is the short version:
    He views organized religion as God, and it is the death of organized religion that will do away with God. He depiction of God illistrative to that extent as an idea or practice that is holding on to its power with frailty by any means necessary.
     
    #6 Allan, Dec 10, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 10, 2007
  7. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am editting my lost post to make it a little more understandable. I was tired last night at work and...well I just didn't read over it till now.

    So here the main paragraph revised.

    By extension it will reflect toward God (but not that it IS God) yet those who understand the two acknowledge they do correlate one with another. However, for the non-believer they merely see or believe the church is a religion of superstition which is seeking to maintain some or any simblence of power it once had. But the arthur of both the article and the books are not outright or as blatent about the aspect of God which we see correlating, as he is with reference to organized religion.

    Hope it makes more sense
     
  8. J.D.

    J.D.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    8
    Yes, it makes sense. Thank you for the reply.

    I admit it's a bit of a push to try to get inside the author's head, especially when we don't know a lot about him except that he is an avowed atheist. I saw him on TV and he didn't pull any punches about it.

    I just think it's interesting, and not accidental, that they chose the words "preservation of free will" to describe the movie. If they said "preservation of freedom to believe and worship according to one's conscience" we could let out a hearty amen, but that's not what they said. Apparently the implication is that man's free will is the supreme law of the universe. Isn't that what some Christian's also believe?
     
  9. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    That could be, but you will find in the books and movie (of those I know about through articles and people who have both seen and read them - about 6 different people) they are ALREADY living without that freedom and thus it is the reason for the rebellion which culminates from them not being able to do and be whatever they want to now. So there is no 'preservation' of anything, they are trying to shake (or fight) free of the control of Religion to get back what they once had. Again you are trying to make a theological argument from something that is not even defined the same way. The free-will is in contrast to the control of an organized Religion of superstition (to them).
     

Share This Page

Loading...