Please explain this to me.

[zagjames]

The specific quote ‘those were all names he gave himself. He was never the creator. He was an angel like ourselves’ would seem to make it clear as crystal.

“The Authority, God, the Creator, the Lord, Yahweh, El, Adonai, the King, the Father, the Almighty—those were all names he gave himself. He was never the creator. He was an angel like ourselves—the first angel, true, the most powerful, but he was formed of Dust as we are, and Dust is only a name for what happens when matter begins to understand itself. . . . The first angels condensed out of Dust, and the Authority was the first of all. He told those who came after him that he had created them, but it was a lie.”

This could not be a Gnostic thing, because if it was then he would not have said the angels condensed out of dust. This would mean he was not a created thing, that could be a demi-god that took over the world in OT times, but it instead suggests that he was never created, nor eternally existant but rather he was coalesced from dust. This is not Gnostic, this is more like Greek Myth than anything else, he says that Angels are basically just like us only on a higher plain. Gods of Greece were just like humans only they had iacor in there veins instead of blood, but they were of the same substance. These books are very unchristian.

 

[AngelRose81]

What irks me is that yes, the movie may have been well-made from an artistic point of view, and yes, the actors may do a fantistic job, but that is not the point. There are lots of movies made well and with outstanding actors like this that should be considered offensive, INCLUDING THIS ONE!!! I don’t think I’ll ever get over the review that the USCCB gave it. It honestly almost made my stomach turn. I’ve read several review of other movies on the site that they labeled offensive that I don’t think were as far as the story they were trying to get across (yes there was bad language and probably some bad scences, but the overall point was good). This one is (from what I’ve heard) the complete opposite. Not that violent, not a lot of bad language, but the series creator’s entire purpose seems to be to promote atheism among children!! sorry for the rant, but I just can’t get over it.

 

[manualman]

From what little I know of Pullman’s works, this Authority is not actually God but an impostor-God – a Demiurge. It’s a gnostic concept: the universe was sort-of created by this Demiurge, who attempted to usurp authority from the real God and played the part through the Old Testament, but got smacked down in the New.

If the protagonists are going up against this being, I see no reason to say it’s against Catholic moral teaching. Theologically unsound, yes, and utterly fantastic, but nothing to froth at the mouth over.

I checked and I have no froth.

But this author wants to subtly suggest to our children that the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the Lord spoken of by the prophets is actually an evil deceiver. Your reaction to this revelation is… big deal?

Would you object to a movie adapted from “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” being shown to your kids if you were Jewish? Why not apply the same reasoning?

 

[Wolseley]

I checked and I have no froth.

But this author wants to subtly suggest to our children that the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the Lord spoken of by the prophets is actually an evil deceiver.

Satan is not stupid. He’s clever enough to mix just enough truth with his lies, and to mislead people just enough to plant doubt in their minds, especially in the minds of impressionable children whose parents unknowingly take them to see this movie.

 

[thomasf]

Some interesting links about this movie and that assanine review:

dads.org/goldencompass-anticatholic.asp

lifesite.net/ldn/2007/dec/07120304.html

There is no doubt what pullman is trying to do. He’s trying to teach kids to be anti-God. He can try to dress things up and deny all he wants. These books are poisonous to christian children.