Help Needed on the Battlefront!

[Thursday1]

Hi all.
I need anyone who has read the “His Dark Materials” Trilogy,
That’s the Golden Compass (Northern Lights if your in the UK), The Subtle Knife, and The Amber Spyglass, To join
www.hisdarkmaterials.org
There is much apologetic work that can be done here.
Here is my thread, so you can get the idea:
cittagazze.hisdarkmaterials.org/viewtopic.php?t=1694&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
The work is many, but the laborers are few.

Pax Christi

 

[challenger]

Woah… I think I read the first one without even realizing it was part of His Dark Materials. Was that the one with armored polar bears or something?

 

[Thursday1]

yes, please join the forum, I can use all the help I can get!

Pax Christi

 

[Sir_Knight]

I could use some help over here as well. It’s been a long battle and some back-up would be appreciated while I recharge my batteries.

Anyone who wants to test their Apologetics skills, this is a good place to do it

PS: Thursday1, I’ll stop by your place to help if you stop by my place to help

 

[Chris_G]

Sir Knight:

I could use some help over here as well. It’s been a long battle and some back-up would be appreciated while I recharge my batteries.

Anyone who wants to test their Apologetics skills, this is a good place to do it

PS: Thursday1, I’ll stop by your place to help if you stop by my place to help

Sir Knight, I have visited that forum and read the entire thread that is primarily between you and Human Error. She(?) claims to be wanting to learn more about the Catholic faith. You have posted countless pearls for her. I applaud you efforts. You are well versed. Unfortunately, she is skipping right over most of your well thought out points and just jumping into bashing anything Catholic. You will make several good posts and she then changes subjects instead of addressing your excellent points.

It may be time to cast the pearls elsewhere…

 

[Sir_Knight]

Chris, I think that I’m going to use your observations in my next reply including the part about casting pearls.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Oh, and thanks for stopping by and lending a hand. I needed that short break to re-charge my batteries.

 

[JCaudle]

Thursday1, I’ve joined your thread under the alias CSRansom. I’m going to try to do the best I can to keep up with the thread.

 

[JCaudle]

I would greatly appreciate any help on the Science, Philosophy, and Religion forum on the site. Practically no knowledge of the books is needed except to know that they are anti-Catholic, anti-organized religion. I would appreciate any help.

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

Sir Knight,

I was reading the thread, and noticed you saying that not going to Confession once a year or more is a mortal sin. Where did you hear that? I’ve never ever heard of anything close to that.

Keep fightin’ by the way.

 

[hecd2]

Why all this energy and emotion devoted to ‘refuting’ Philip Pullman’s wonderful trilogy? How dull and unimaginative does one need to be to see these excellent novels as an attack on the Church? ’His Dark Materials’ are anti-clerical for sure, and all the better for that, but they are one of the most truly spiritual works of the last twenty years. Pullman has produced a sustained hymn to the concept of the soul, to love and self-sacrifice in the pursuit of good, to the special status of people in the universe, to heroism and individuality. It is an immensely life-enhancing work.

Of course, Pullman excoriates hypocrisy, authoritarianism and the kind of religious observance that diminishes life to a collection of ‘thou shalt nots’. He attacks self-righteousness, sanctimonious cant,and that species of overbearing moral superiority that never admits the possibility of being wrong and which is prepared to destroy individual lives in pursuit of a ‘big idea’.

But let’s focus on the positive. His Dark Materials books are not primarily about being against ideas, but are, rather, about celebrating the wonders of human endeavour. They are astonishingly insightful about the human condition. They teach so much about how to live a good life without being patronising or preachy. They stand on the side of goodness and the struggle to be true to oneself. They are at times incredibly affecting – I don’t see how anyone with a heart can read them without crying at some point – and their power to move lies in the deep underlying emotional truth of Pullman’s vision. Who could be unmoved by Lyra’s love for her father, or for Iorek Byrnison*, *or ultimately for Will Parry (all different, all lost in the end, and yet every one consummated in its own beautiful way). How can anyone experience the astonishing cruelty of cutting a daemon from a child, or Lyra and Patalaimon’s devastation at being separated while she fulfils her oath to save Roger, or Will’s growing realisation that his daemon lies within, without learning something about the meaning of the human soul? Who can fail to be inspired by a being as gorgeous and free as Serafina Pekkala (and what genius to create a name of such beauty)? The flaws and the complexities in the characters, even as they struggle through their lives, are the stuff of good literature from Chaucer to Orwell.

Pullman manages this without falling into the mire of sentimentality that C S Lewis wallows in from time to time. His Dark Materials is a deeper, more mature work than the Chronicles of Narnia, because Pullman’s intention is not to teach or preach but to reveal emotional truth. They fully engage sophisticated adult readers. Pullman’s novels are about moral courage and about doing the right thing in the most difficult circumstances. They make a powerful case for living a rich life way beyond the petty materialism that preoccupies most of us. They are deeply, fundamentally spiritual and they call on us to look into our hearts to find a path that we can be proud to follow. And that surely is a good thing.

Alec

 

[JCaudle]

Why all this energy and emotion devoted to ‘refuting’ Philip Pullman’s wonderful trilogy? How dull and unimaginative does one need to be to see these excellent novels as an attack on the Church?

I’m not trying to ‘refute’ Philip Pullman’s trilogy. I’m trying to refute the errors in the thoughts of the people on the forums. I guess I may have been wrong to say that the novels are anti-Catholic, but the people on the site have interpreted them that way.

 

[hecd2]

JCaudle:

I’m not trying to ‘refute’ Philip Pullman’s trilogy. I’m trying to refute the errors in the thoughts of the people on the forums. I guess I may have been wrong to say that the novels are anti-Catholic, but the people on the site have interpreted them that way.

I’m sorry, but you did say that the only thing one needed to know about the books in order to debate the opinions of those who had read them and were influenced by them was that they are ‘anti-Catholic, anti-organized religion’. Leaving aside the fact that this is a very inadequate foundation on which to build a case, you did seem to think that the most important things about the books were their supposed anti-Catholicism.

If you enter into a discussion with thinking people with the express intention of ‘refuting the errors in their thoughts’, you are as likely to have your errors of thinking and logic exposed as to refute theirs.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[JCaudle]

hecd2:

I’m sorry, but you did say that the only thing one needed to know about the books in order to debate the opinions of those who had read them and were influenced by them was that they are ‘anti-Catholic, anti-organized religion’. Leaving aside the fact that this is a very inadequate foundation on which to build a case, you did seem to think that the most important things about the books were their supposed anti-Catholicism.

If you enter into a discussion with thinking people with the express intention of ‘refuting the errors in their thoughts’, you are as likely to have your errors of thinking and logic exposed as to refute theirs.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

You make good points, and I agree that I went into the discussions incorrectly. I have now changed my methods. I’m now explaining the teachings of the church rationally and defending them when people bring up objections. My original attitude was an attempt to defend the teachings of the church at all costs. I was noticing a very anti-Catholic attitude on the site, so that’s the information I was trying to convey. Apparently I did not convey that message very well.

 

[hecd2]

JCaudle:

hecd2:

I’m sorry, but you did say that the only

thing one needed to know about the books in order to debate the opinions of those who had read them and were influenced by them was that they are ‘anti-Catholic, anti-organized religion’. Leaving aside the fact that this is a very inadequate foundation on which to build a case, you did seem to think that the most important things about the books were their supposed anti-Catholicism.

If you enter into a discussion with thinking people with the express intention of ‘refuting the errors in their thoughts’, you are as likely to have your errors of thinking and logic exposed as to refute theirs
You make good points, and I agree that I went into the discussions incorrectly. I have now changed my methods. I’m now explaining the teachings of the church rationally and defending them when people bring up objections. My original attitude was an attempt to defend the teachings of the church at all costs. I was noticing a very anti-Catholic attitude on the site, so that’s the information I was trying to convey. Apparently I did not convey that message very well.

Well I must say that I am very impressed by this. It takes a big person to admit that they were wrong. I’ve looked in on the HDM list and you are, in fact, doing a fine job of explaining what you believe. Many Catholics don’t believe that the Church is right about everything and no non-Catholics believe that, so using that assumption as a premise and a starting point in debate is unlikely to be successful

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[JCaudle]

hecd2:

Well I must say that I am very impressed by this. It takes a big person to admit that they were wrong. I’ve looked in on the HDM list and you are, in fact, doing a fine job of explaining what you believe. Many Catholics don’t believe that the Church is right about everything and no non-Catholics believe that, so using that assumption as a premise and a starting point in debate is unlikely to be successful

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Thank you for saying you are impressed; I’m not so sure you need to be though. I’ve been trying to go through why the Church teaches what she does based on reasoning people can understand. As I’m sure you can tell by going through that thread, or any other of the threads in the Science, Philosophy, and Religion thread, I haven’t always been very successful. Oh well, I’m trying to do what I can. I guess I’ll just have to keep praying for help.