His Dark Materials [Archive]

The Gaffer

06-30-2005, 03:35 AM

I did a search and was surprised that there is no thread already devoted to this excellent trilogy.

I read it fairly recently (nicked it off son #1), wondering what all the fuss was about, and was astonished. A really beautiful story with some great ideas and strong messages.

Anyone else read it? What were your thoughts?

cassiopeia

06-30-2005, 07:10 AM

It's a brilliant series, quite possibly my favourite book after The Lord of the Rings. I think the love story weakened the trilogy, but overall it's a great adventure with a lot of detail and thought gone into it. Wonderful stuff.

The Gaffer

06-30-2005, 09:14 AM

BeardofPants

07-01-2005, 02:09 AM

durinsbane2244

07-01-2005, 07:33 PM

wow, im glad this series has a thread, i loved it, in fact, im on the amber spyglass for my second time through!

i love all books like this that take that theological twist, and the love story had to be there for adam and eve!

great books! :D

Lotesse

07-01-2005, 10:58 PM

The title of this thread immediately caught my eye and pricked up my ears; however, I've no idea what books you all are talking about. Is this some hidden Tolkien material I should seek out? Whose "dark materials"? Dark material is right up my alley -

Falagar

07-02-2005, 02:31 PM

Dark material is, If I Remember Correctly, a (hypotetical, undetectable) substance suggested by scientists in order for a few theories about the Universe to make sense. What relevance it has to the books...well, read and find out. :)
The first one was amazing, the second one was pretty good, the last one was pretty disappointingly weak, IMO. The love story bugged the crap out of me... but then lotsa things bug the crap out of me.
I loved the love-story, and I'm not usually a big sucker for such things.

cee2lee2

07-02-2005, 07:57 PM

I really like the love story. I thought that it tied the whole thing together and helped to get the message across.

I thought that the parallel worlds represented each of our subjective experiences of the world.

That Lyra and Will inhabit mutually exclusive worlds was an analogy for how we can never REALLY know what it is like to be someone else. Nevertheless, we know that they're there!

The way Pullman used this in the context of two kids going through adolescence was wonderful. I howled like a baby at the end.

Well said! I don't think the books would have been so powerful without the love story. And yes, I "howled" too. But as much as I liked the story, it's not something I'm willing to plough through again. (Gave my books to sis-in-law; need to ask her what she thought of them.) Almost felt as if I were more exhausted than anything else when I finished. Tolkien doesn't do that to me.

The Gaffer

07-03-2005, 10:21 AM

Eeet's been done beeeefore Gaffaaaaar (http://entmoot.com/search.php?searchid=78194) Blind git. :p

The first one was amazing, the second one was pretty good, the last one was pretty disappointingly weak, IMO. The love story bugged the crap out of me... but then lotsa things bug the crap out of me. :o
* shivers *

But thanks for the link, Your Pantsness.

His Dark Materials is a trilogy by Phillip Pullman. Girl saves the universe from badness, while growing up. Too much grooviness to go into right now.

Lotesse

07-03-2005, 09:01 PM

Thanx 4 the info, you guys!

The Gaffer

07-04-2005, 12:40 PM

But thanks for the link, Your Pantsness.
When I said thanks, I should of course have said no thanks at all for the dud link. I did do a search before starting the thread but didn't find anything.

Anyhoo, so what do you all think about Dust? Groovy concept, but what is it, what does it mean? etc.

BeardofPants

07-05-2005, 08:59 PM

tolkienfan

07-06-2005, 12:17 AM

I used to really like this series. My favorite book was The Golden Compass. I liked The Amber Spyglass too, but the ending was a little weird. I haven't read the books for a while, but I remember that the most annoying thing about the ending for me was Pan! Didn't he end up as a ferret-ish thing? I was so sure he was going to be ermine, and then it isn't even specific about what animal he is! The ending was kind of sad too, but it was okay.

The Gaffer

07-06-2005, 04:25 AM

Dud link? Frick 'n poop. It werked when I posted it. :confused:
Eh well, induhvidual linkies will hafta do:
Old link (http://entmoot.com/showthread.php?t=1541&highlight=Pullman)
Toasty (http://entmoot.com/showthread.php?t=1942&highlight=Pullman)
Crusty (http://entmoot.com/showthread.php?t=6257&highlight=Pullman)

You may lick my toes now.

mmmmm. cheese.
Actually, you know what bugged me more than the love story? The whole god-concept in the third book. I mean, I'm as atheist/agnostic as they come, but I thought that was a bit... overkill.

Oh, and Gaffar? Not only are you blind, you're also amnesiac (http://entmoot.com/showpost.php?p=367457&postcount=129) :p
Heh, it would seem so. Wonder why it didn't come up when I searched?

God concept: yes, not the most subtle of devices it has to be said. I suppose you gotta remember that it's a kids' book. It did make me laugh though: God being a decrepit prisoner of his own "servants".

I also can't remember what her daemon ended up as. I suppose the point is that it ended up as something.

Willow Oran

07-06-2005, 09:48 PM

Dark Materials is a difficult story to plough through. I thought it was worth it though. The religiousness of the third book bugged me a bit at first but at least it gets the reader thinking a bit. I think the only part that I really didn't like was the anticlimatic ending. There was all that build up and a lovely subtle romance and in the end it just died and they had to move on with their lives. It could've used a bit more closer than that.
The youth program at our local theater is putting on an adaptation of the series in two parts this summer. The first part is being acted by the 9-14 year olds and the second part by the 15-18 year olds. I'm really excited to see how it turns out, especially since Tano is assistant directing. It should be fun to see it on stage.

Bran

09-30-2005, 06:53 PM

Personally, I loved the love story aspect of the books, and thought it was really importent to the story. In fact, the whole Adam and Eve plot wouldn't have worked if Lyra were not tempted and had not fallen in love with Will, and the whole Adam and Eve thing is the core of the story. You can't have His Dark Materials without the love story.

These are among my favorite books ever, and I highly recommend them. I'd also like to point out that Pullman himself said he didn't have anything against spirituality, and that he is a spiritual person himself. But he does have a problem with Religion, and the organizational aspects of Religion that can be so damaging to societys, as seen in His Dark Materials, in which the church is basically a huge evil Empire. And that they're so taken with the idea that's it's there place to save the world from evil(their idea of evil), and will go to such great langths to it, like violence, they basically become the badguys.

Lief Erikson

10-01-2005, 04:24 PM

But he does have a problem with Religion, and the organizational aspects of Religion that can be so damaging to societys, as seen in His Dark Materials, in which the church is basically a huge evil Empire.
Yes, and that is obviously just absurd. Organized church has at times done damage and things that are wrong. Disorganized churches-particularly cults-commonly do things that are even worse. Organized churches have been at the heart of massive relief efforts, such as for Hurricane Katrina, and are involved in relieving poverty and ending violence in many of the darkest places of the world. Organized churches have brought economy, education and hope to many people that are desperate. Organized church in the Medieval Ages was for centuries the heart of culture, society, art and education. Basically every good thing that existed in the world existed because of and through the organized Roman Catholic Church.

Of course there have been abuses too. There have been times where the church ignores its own doctrines, and these occasions are more obvious in organized church than non-organized church, because organized churches are so much more visible. The point is human nature. There are non-Christian Christians, just as there are non-Muslim Muslims and non-Buddhist Buddhists, and so on. We are all people. There can be problems with organized churches, but there can also be major problems, and many times worse problems, in areas outside of the influence of organized church.
And that they're so taken with the idea that's it's there place to save the world from evil(their idea of evil), and will go to such great langths to it, like violence, they basically become the badguys.
It can happen. But Philip Pullman is being absurd in his books. The Christianity he presents is so, so, so, so far from the truth that I don't get concerned at all by it. I know other Christians who are worried about Philip Pullman's books and about how "the devil is using them." Well, perhaps the devil is using them, but the lie is just so blatantly obvious that I don't personally get very worried about it. Philip Pullman should do research about the organized church in a way that doesn't focus solely upon the Spanish Inquisition, if he wants to paint an accurate picture ;).
Personally, I loved the love story aspect of the books, and thought it was really importent to the story. In fact, the whole Adam and Eve plot wouldn't have worked if Lyra were not tempted and had not fallen in love with Will, and the whole Adam and Eve thing is the core of the story. You can't have His Dark Materials without the love story.
Probably true :). It is weird to me how young they are, but I know that in some cultures that happens. I don't get bothered by it in a very deep way, and I know that these particular two kids mature very quickly. People who have had extreme or harsh types of experiences often do mature swiftly.
These are among my favorite books ever, and I highly recommend them.
They are great books indeed :). Very well done writing, good plot structure, good narrative, good characters, good fantasy :D.

cee2lee2

10-01-2005, 10:16 PM

....But Philip Pullman is being absurd in his books. The Christianity he presents is so, so, so, so far from the truth that I don't get concerned at all by it. I know other Christians who are worried about Philip Pullman's books and about how "the devil is using them." Well, perhaps the devil is using them, but the lie is just so blatantly obvious that I don't personally get very worried about it. Philip Pullman should do research about the organized church in a way that doesn't focus solely upon the Spanish Inquisition, if he wants to paint an accurate picture ;).

When I first read the books I was a little concerned about Pullmans's presentation of Christianity, but after thinking about it, I agree with you. His representation is so extreme that it bears no connection to my faith.

These books are not easy to read but they are worth the effort. However, I probably won't read them again (gave my copies away) as I do others such as Lord of the Rings, the Narnia series, or Pride and Prejudice.

Bran

10-07-2005, 01:17 AM

I think it is true that Pullman took his attack on Christianity to an extreme, and I think it's true that there was a good side to these organized religions that he his not representing. But I think we also do need to take into acount how evil the church truely was, and how much of that Pullman had to draw from. What about the Cruesades? The church couldn't control their knights, whose bloodlust would drive them to ride throw towns slaughtering all in their path only to satisfy their own bloodlust. So what the Pope do? He came up with the idea of sending them all out to murder a bunch of people for living in there homeland, and throw them out of their own city. Propaganda is spreaded, and they end up doing it nearly a dozen times. That's just plain evil. Even if the crusades went underway because of the reason the propaganda said it was, they still didn't have a good enough reason to kill the amount of people they did. The church did some really terrible things in the middle-ages.

What about the witch hunts? And sending missionarys to foreign countrys and telling the people there to stop practicing there own religion and to shed their own culture to take on anothers. And if the people refused, we'd kidnap their kids and send them to camps where we'd rape them of their haritage, and force our own upon them. Is that an understanding and compassionate church? And all of this in the name of GOD? I can see why maybe Pullman has a hard time dwelling on the good side of Christianity.

I also don't think he's completely agains't organization. The way he had Asriel starting a republic, one that wouldn't force it's views on it's citizens and drive them into submission through fear, to face off with the one who did, was obviously showing that there was hope in his mind for a republic that could actually work. Even the ending, in which Lyra speaks of "the Republic of Heaven, purposes that a republic could be good, it's just that we haven't had one yet. The message I get from the books isn't that Pullman is completely anti-organizational, but merely an idealist. He was merely showing us how bad organization could get, and has gotten, so that we may see how much better it could get, and hopefully someday make our own "Republic of Heaven".

The Gaffer

10-07-2005, 11:53 AM

Lief Erikson

10-08-2005, 09:23 PM

That last point was, for me, the key thing.

The representation of the Church as an Evil Empire was extreme (though one might argue around just how inaccurate it was), but the main attack was on how the Church attempts to hijack individuals' spirituality in order to control us.

Pullman's alternative is to build the Kingdom of Heaven in our heads.
It's been a while since I read the books. Would you explain to me how that last works?
though one might argue around just how inaccurate it was
Very, very inaccurate. Unless you're just trying to describe the Spanish Inquisition :D.
But I think we also do need to take into acount how evil the church truely was, and how much of that Pullman had to draw from. What about the Cruesades? The church couldn't control their knights, whose bloodlust would drive them to ride throw towns slaughtering all in their path only to satisfy their own bloodlust. So what the Pope do? He came up with the idea of sending them all out to murder a bunch of people for living in there homeland, and throw them out of their own city. Propaganda is spreaded, and they end up doing it nearly a dozen times. That's just plain evil. Even if the crusades went underway because of the reason the propaganda said it was, they still didn't have a good enough reason to kill the amount of people they did. The church did some really terrible things in the middle-ages.
Some terrible things, and some absolutely wonderful, glorious things. I've already mentioned how they were the center of everything good and noble in the past. They were the center of culture and education. Monasteries and many churches practiced giving to the poor, caring for the needy. There was a wonderful side to the church.

The fact is that people are people. Many people claim to be a part of a religion, but they don't practice that religion in a true way. The Bible itself talks about people that pose as Christians but aren't. Paul describes people who come among his flock as "wolves among sheep." Jesus talked about those who would say, "did we not preach in the streets in your name," but who he never knew and who would be thrown into hell. There are Buddhists that aren't real Buddhists, Muslims that aren't real Muslims, Hindus that aren't real Hindus, and Christians that aren't real Christians.

To organized church there is a wonderful side. There is a dark side to humanity, however. Philip Pullman says that the dark side is in the organized church. He does not say that the dark side is in humanity itself. In fact, while trouncing the church, he celebrates humanity. This is a very deep error.

I think I can easily demonstrate just as hideous of wrongs taking place in non-denominational churches as happened in organized churches. Many cults and other groups that aren't responsible to a higher structure go off on tangents, try to control their participants, and fall into many kinds of errors. This is not about whether church is organized or not. It's about whether people will ever be truly good.

Curubethion

10-08-2005, 09:27 PM

Maybe this is a little off-topic for a book thread, but yes, there were fanatic Christians during the Crusades. Just like there are radical Muslim suicide bombers. Both are, of course wrong. But the Crusades weren't totally murder, and they certainly weren't intended as murder.

Lief Erikson

10-08-2005, 10:29 PM

I think that if we follow the discussion of that particular example's validity, we might really be leaving the topic of "His Dark Materials."

The Gaffer

10-09-2005, 04:28 PM

In response to your on-topic question Lief, I believe that it's one of the last passages in the trilogy where Lara learns to construct her own version of heaven.

Bran

10-19-2005, 12:12 AM

I think you have some valid things to say, Lief. And that I agree that the chruch has done some very wonderful things. But I also think that Pullmans main objective was the spiritual side of the things the Christians did. It's not a question that they have done some good and things and some bad, but there's no question of whether the church uses fear to "hijack individuals spirituality in order to control us" like the Gaffer put so well. And that is a terrible thing. People act as if all religions are like this, but it's not true. There are religions our there, like Buddhism, that doesn't try to convince you to adopt their beliefs (and kidnap your children when you don't). They would merely say that instead of trying to make someone like yourself, Buddhist, for instance, try to make them better at the practice they already practice. I think one point Pullman was trying to make is that SOME christians, perticulary those further up in the order, merely see spirituality as a way of controling the people, and not a quest for enlightenment. Pullman was pointing out that so much of the Church is about power and money, and will abuse the words of the Christ and people's belief in him in order to gain it.

Also, what you were saying about there being evil individuals makes sense, but does't hold much ground on the matter of these books. The whole point is that the church WAS one crazy individaul, God (or so he called himself), who did evil things through an oranization. So, in a way, Pullman agrees with you. Pullman's saying that your spiritaulity is something that you should not give complete control of over to someone who is human and has the potential for doing great evil.

The Gaffer

10-19-2005, 03:00 AM

Excellently put, sir or madam.

Historically, it seems as if the Church (like any other Organisation) has been corrupt in direct proportion to the amount of power it had. There is a strong element of caricature in Pullman's book, which I think he deliberately overplayed.

The bottom line I took from HDM was that spirituality is an aspect of the human condition which we should embrace and take responsibility for as individuals and not hand over to others. The fact that it more or less accords with my own world-view probably biased my appreciation of the book somewhat, but it was certainly refreshing to see it reflected in a work of fiction, which is not something that I think I have come across before.

Lief Erikson

10-20-2005, 06:49 PM

It's not a question that they have done some good and things and some bad, but there's no question of whether the church uses fear to "hijack individuals spirituality in order to control us" like the Gaffer put so well.
"uses"? It has been used. It may still be used in some places. But here you're generalizing by saying, "the church uses", as though the whole church does this. Since we had separation of church and state, it has become much less of a problem than it once was.
And that is a terrible thing. People act as if all religions are like this, but it's not true. There are religions our there, like Buddhism, that doesn't try to convince you to adopt their beliefs (and kidnap your children when you don't). They would merely say that instead of trying to make someone like yourself, Buddhist, for instance, try to make them better at the practice they already practice.
I am positive that I can find some instances. Unfortunately, the computer that I'm on as I write this doesn't allow me to do research properly. I'll get back to you with some examples as soon as I can.

The reason the Church's faults are so obvious is that the Church was so dominant, its influence so widespread, and its impact upon modern history so massive.

Islam's faults are far more obvious. The Christians built empires that controlled people during the 1800s. The Christians fought bloody religious wars and also launched the Crusades, a hideous trail of atrocities. Islam, on the other hand, has been violent at pretty much every point since the religion's very beginning and continues in violence to this day. Remember the Ottomans? They only fell a century ago. Since then, Muslim states have frequently enacted violence in the name of Islam in the Middle East, against Israel. Muslim terrorist groups continue to do the same, but not only in the Middle East: around the world.

Hinduism, supposedly also a religion of peace and tolerance, ruthlessly crushes opposition within its state. Remember the Hindu/Pakistani battles that Gandhi peacefully fought to overcome? Less commonly known are the modern time atrocities, such as the persecution of Christians, Buddhists and Muslims that Hindus practice in India to this day. People are fleeing out into hills and forests and India because Hindus steal or burn their homes, and attack them with beatings.
I think one point Pullman was trying to make is that SOME christians, perticulary those further up in the order, merely see spirituality as a way of controling the people, and not a quest for enlightenment.
First of all, I would say that Christianity is not about "a quest for enlightenment". Neither is it about "spirituality". It is about man's relationship with God. "Spirituality" seems to me to be a pretty vague term. "A quest for enlightenment" is a Hindu and Buddhist idea. Though knowledge is definitely praised in the scripture, and seeking it is encouraged, it is not what Christianity is about.

However, I agree with you that "SOME Christians, particularly those further up in the order, seek to control people." Except that I would add the letter 's' to the end of order, and would replace the word 'the' with the word 'some'. Though as regards organizations, it probably is all, I don't like generalizations :p.
Pullman was pointing out that so much of the Church is about power and money, and will abuse the words of the Christ and people's belief in him in order to gain it.
Some in the Church definitely do. Some in the Church definitely have. However, in Pullman's book, all that is portrayed is one gloomy and relatively small part of Christian history. As you have admitted, there is a huge amount of good that Christianity brought to the world, and none of that is portrayed. The message in the text is very flawed, in the way it portrays Christianity.
Also, what you were saying about there being evil individuals makes sense, but does't hold much ground on the matter of these books. The whole point is that the church WAS one crazy individaul, God (or so he called himself), who did evil things through an oranization. So, in a way, Pullman agrees with you.
Except that the church in real life wasn't one crazy individual :). Imperfect people had too much control over other people's lives. That was what essentially was happening at that time. There were some evil people there too, who had too much control over other people's lives. That wasn't so much a problem with organizational church as it was a problem with political church. It wasn't all one crazy individual, either. Some of the popes and kings were wise and discerning men. The "pope" of Philip Pullman's book (God) is quite simply an evil man. That's all of the church we have the opportunity to see.

Even in times when parts of organizational churches were controlled by evil men, there was lots of good going on as well. Even when the pope was very badly flawed, there was lots of good going on as well. Christianity still maintained the heart and soul of culture and education. It continued many times (though not always) to support the needy and place beautiful moral doctrines in the hearts and minds of men.
Pullman's saying that your spiritaulity is something that you should not give complete control of over to someone who is human and has the potential for doing great evil.
I agree with that. In that respect, some religious institutions in the past have been flawed. Since politics and church have been separated, however, this problem has, in most places, ceased to exist.

I enjoy the discussion, Bran :). Thanks for your intelligent and thoughtful (though in my opinion, flawed :p) posts :D. I really do enjoy the discussion.

Bran

10-20-2005, 10:51 PM

Thank you, Lief, I am also enjoying the conversation. I was just finishing up a lengthy post when my computer suddenly died on me and my writing was lost. I must have touched the power cord or something. I hate laptops...
I'll post a reply as soon as I can use my own computer. :)

Lief Erikson

10-21-2005, 12:05 AM

Bran

10-26-2005, 12:55 AM

"uses"? It has been used. It may still be used in some places. But here you're generalizing by saying, "the church uses", as though the whole church does this. Since we had separation of church and state, it has become much less of a problem than it once was.

I am positive that I can find some instances. Unfortunately, the computer that I'm on as I write this doesn't allow me to do research properly. I'll get back to you with some examples as soon as I can.

Oh, I agree that all religions have had their bad moments, and that most have had moments just as bad as the Christians. I don't mean to sound as if the Christian's were the only bad guys here, that's obviously a rediculous charge, and I'm sorry if I came off that way. I was merely stating that in certain instances, such as the tolerrance of other religions, there are and have been religions and governments who did a better job tolerating the beliefs of the people than the Church did.

The reason the Church's faults are so obvious is that the Church was so dominant, its influence so widespread, and its impact upon modern history so massive.

It's true, but also did more damage because of it's widespread influence and dominance.

Islam's faults are far more obvious. The Christians built empires that controlled people during the 1800s. The Christians fought bloody religious wars and also launched the Crusades, a hideous trail of atrocities. Islam, on the other hand, has been violent at pretty much every point since the religion's very beginning and continues in violence to this day. Remember the Ottomans? They only fell a century ago. Since then, Muslim states have frequently enacted violence in the name of Islam in the Middle East, against Israel. Muslim terrorist groups continue to do the same, but not only in the Middle East: around the world.

Hinduism, supposedly also a religion of peace and tolerance, ruthlessly crushes opposition within its state. Remember the Hindu/Pakistani battles that Gandhi peacefully fought to overcome? Less commonly known are the modern time atrocities, such as the persecution of Christians, Buddhists and Muslims that Hindus practice in India to this day. People are fleeing out into hills and forests and India because Hindus steal or burn their homes, and attack them with beatings.

It's completely true, but the thing I think we need to realize is that Pullman isn't necesarrily saying Christians were worse than the Muslims, I think he ment to include all religions when he "attacked" the most obvious example of a large religion, Christianity.

First of all, I would say that Christianity is not about "a quest for enlightenment". Neither is it about "spirituality". It is about man's relationship with God. "Spirituality" seems to me to be a pretty vague term. "A quest for enlightenment" is a Hindu and Buddhist idea. Though knowledge is definitely praised in the scripture, and seeking it is encouraged, it is not what Christianity is about.

I realize that the term "Enlightenment" is not used in the Christian tradition, I was using it as a generalization for the path or objective of a religious practice, which was too much of a generalization, I confess. But I'm not sure you fully understand the term "Enlightenment"m either. You make it sound as if the people who seek it search for it in books, when really it needent even be logical in the first place. "Enlightenment" is seen as a stillness within the chaos of life, and a feeling of wholeness and connectedness with all living things and with God. This is not the best describtion of "Enlightenment" or "Nirvana", but, to me at least, it doesn't sound all that different than what the Christians are practicing, though the words and terms used are different. Maybe you could comment on that?

However, I agree with you that "SOME Christians, particularly those further up in the order, seek to control people." Except that I would add the letter 's' to the end of order, and would replace the word 'the' with the word 'some'. Though as regards organizations, it probably is all, I don't like generalizations :p.

Some in the Church definitely do. Some in the Church definitely have. However, in Pullman's book, all that is portrayed is one gloomy and relatively small part of Christian history. As you have admitted, there is a huge amount of good that Christianity brought to the world, and none of that is portrayed. The message in the text is very flawed, in the way it portrays Christianity.

It's true that whatever religion he was trying to portray, he was showing one side of it's being. But, as I think I've said before, I think the purpose of the way he showed religion was not necesarrily to paint a perfect picture of Christian's or any religious group, but to show the characteristics of these groups that he wished were different.

Except that the church in real life wasn't one crazy individual :). Imperfect people had too much control over other people's lives. That was what essentially was happening at that time. There were some evil people there too, who had too much control over other people's lives. That wasn't so much a problem with organizational church as it was a problem with political church. It wasn't all one crazy individual, either. Some of the popes and kings were wise and discerning men. The "pope" of Philip Pullman's book (God) is quite simply an evil man. That's all of the church we have the opportunity to see.

I think that's true, and I think it was what Pullman was trying to say is that you should not give over something like your spirituality to something or someone wholey human and therefor has the potential for great evil. Like I have said above, I don't think it was Pullman's intent to paint a perfect picture of these organizations, and I doubt very much that if he had shown the Church doing much good, the book would have had as much of an effect on the reader. And even if he doesn't show the good, it doesn't mean there isn't any, and it doesn't mean the bad parts aren't true. I don't think that his leaving out of the good parts in any way undermines the truth of the bad parts.

Even in times when parts of organizational churches were controlled by evil men, there was lots of good going on as well. Even when the pope was very badly flawed, there was lots of good going on as well. Christianity still maintained the heart and soul of culture and education. It continued many times (though not always) to support the needy and place beautiful moral doctrines in the hearts and minds of men.

Whether they liked it or not...

I agree with that. In that respect, some religious institutions in the past have been flawed. Since politics and church have been separated, however, this problem has, in most places, ceased to exist.

I believe this to be a very flawed argument, since the problem has most obviously not ceased to exist. The Church and religion has played a huge part in today's politics, and I hear from adults who have seen the years pass say that it looks even more influential to today's politics than it did twenty years ago.
What about Bush claiming God told him to attack Iraq? That is an absurdly obvious religious influence in our government! My uncle left his Church after hearing the amount of pressure was being put on it's members to vote for Bush, and that has been a complaint throughout the country. I just read in the news the other of how Bush's reasoning behind trying to elect a new judge to the Supreme Court was based on the faith they shared. Which would upset the balance on the Abortion law trying to be passed equality of possitive vs. negative vote, effectively passing the law. If she does make it into the Court, then the law will be passed and religion will have played a part in passing a federal law! All this you call seperation of religion and politics? I say that's bull.

I enjoy the discussion, Bran :). Thanks for your intelligent and thoughtful (though in my opinion, flawed :p) posts :D. I really do enjoy the discussion.

Bran

10-26-2005, 01:55 AM

Extra note: The first thing the new (freaky-ass Nazi) Pope did when he came into power, as a way of "consolidating the empire", was completely condemn the practice of do-it-yourself religions, and told the people that that was a dangerous road and that when they tried to interpet Jesus and the Bible themselves, that they would become confused and stray from the right Path and head "down" the wrong one. His answer to this was for everyone to attend Church more and to only listen to what the priests told them. There's control for you. The newest Pope is well known to be nothing but a politician and has nothing but political ideas for his newly found power. Just thought I'd add that little bit.

Lief Erikson

10-26-2005, 02:48 AM

Extra note: The first thing the new (freaky-ass Nazi) Pope did when he came into power, as a way of "consolidating the empire", was completely condemn the practice of do-it-yourself religions,
A stance that I, personally, agree with. I read about that condemnation, and he was talking about "spirituality," the view that you can be moral, or be spiritual, while not being religious. He attacked strongly, and I think that he was right to do so. Jesus never taught "do-it-yourself spirituality". It has nothing to do with scripture, but is rather flawed, in my view. The Pope's message was largely directed at Christian youth who are listening to many different messages. From my Christian perspective, I would say that he was in the right to provide them with a strong warning and a good sense of direction, in their spiritual walks.
and told the people that that was a dangerous road and that when they tried to interpet Jesus and the Bible themselves, that they would become confused and stray from the right Path and head "down" the wrong one. His answer to this was for everyone to attend Church more and to only listen to what the priests told them. There's control for you. The newest Pope is well known to be nothing but a politician and has nothing but political ideas for his newly found power. Just thought I'd add that little bit.
The view that the Bible's interpretation is given by the priests and Pope has been constant in Catholicism since the Medieval Ages. I don't agree that the Pope is a perfect authority to interpret scripture, myself, but this isn't anything new.
I was merely stating that in certain instances, such as the tolerrance of other religions, there are and have been religions and governments who did a better job tolerating the beliefs of the people than the Church did.
Well, as Christianity has been one of the largest religions, I'd have to agree with you. It's the largest, so its wrongdoing is the greatest, just as its benefits to civilization have also been the greatest (in my opinion).
But I'm not sure you fully understand the term "Enlightenment"m either.
It's funny- when you said that you reminded me very strongly of my older sister :D.
You make it sound as if the people who seek it search for it in books, when really it needent even be logical in the first place.
"Enlightenment" is seen as a stillness within the chaos of life, and a feeling of wholeness and connectedness with all living things and with God. This is not the best describtion of "Enlightenment" or "Nirvana", but, to me at least, it doesn't sound all that different than what the Christians are practicing, though the words and terms used are different. Maybe you could comment on that?
Well, there are similarities. I was aware that enlightenment also involved mediatation, like you describe. Christianity also involves meditation, though of a somewhat different variety. Whereas many meditate simply to empty themselves, Christians empty their mind of thoughts in order to be filled up again, and filled with the light of experiencing God. Meditation also is a tool for Christians, a means to an end. Enlightenment isn't so much a goal in and of itself, as much as it is a fruit that grows naturally from knowing God.
It's true that whatever religion he was trying to portray, he was showing one side of it's being. But, as I think I've said before, I think the purpose of the way he showed religion was not necesarrily to paint a perfect picture of Christian's or any religious group, but to show the characteristics of these groups that he wished were different.
That makes sense, but painting a flawed picture can have negative consequences. It can cause people to overlook the good. For example, if I wrote a fiction book that strongly portrayed Muslim extremism, but didn't show the liberal side of Islam, I would be painting a grossly innaccurate picture. It would be portraying what I want changed, but at the same time, by excluding the peaceful Muslims, it says, "Islam is bad" implicitly. It doesn't hint that there's anything good about Islam. Philip Pullman doesn't hint that there's anything good about Christianity. Hence, it can present more than one message.

I think a book that presents both what should be changed and what shouldn't would be painting a more accurate picture and would be presenting a more accurate message, by far.
It continued many times (though not always) to support the needy and place beautiful moral doctrines in the hearts and minds of men.
Whether they liked it or not...
We're talking about an age where religious freedom had scarcely been heard of. Theodoric the barbarian taught religious freedom some, but he was post-Crusades and into the Medieval Ages. Just about no one caught on. The Hindus originally had no notion of religious freedom (and in some places they absolutely still don't), and originally persecuted the Buddhists. Christians persecuted others. Muslims persecuted others. There was never any question among any civilizations of that time about "should there be a state religion?" The question was always: "what shall the state religion be?" That's a universal historical fact from that time period. It has nothing to do with the fact that the religion was organized. In fact, though my family is pretty much non-denominational, my father has warned his children about going to churches that aren't in organized religion. Apparently, many times these are places where one individual gets a lot of power and becomes very controlling. Cult situations spring up frequently in environments such as those. Organized religion in some ways seems a lot safer to me.
I agree with that. In that respect, some religious institutions in the past have been flawed. Since politics and church have been separated, however, this problem has, in most places, ceased to exist.

I believe this to be your most flawed argument, since the problem has most obviously not ceased to exist.
I agree. Politics and religion still are united in some ways. However, I think you'll agree with me that it's nowhere near what it used to be.
The Church and religion has played a huge part in today's politics, and I hear from adults who have seen the years pass say that it looks even more influential to today's politics than it did twenty years ago.

What about Bush claiming God told him to attack Iraq? That is an absurdly obvious religious influence in our government!
Stupid BBC (Though I like the site, actually, and use it to get my normal news) trying to stir up trouble. One Palestinian official said he heard the President say that in a summit meeting, but he added that in the context, he didn't think it was intended literally. One official. That official's claim, and he's the one who heard it, also was that President Bush hadn't meant it literally. Stupid BBC.

President Bush certainly has never gone on microphone to my knowledge and publicly said, "God told me to invade Iraq."
My uncle left his Church after hearing the amount of pressure was being put on it's members to vote for Bush, and that has been a complaint throughout the country.
I'm sure that there is some negative pressure going on. That's definitely too bad. I don't know how widespread it is, though. You'd need to show me some data aside from the personal example.
I just read in the news the other of how Bush's reasoning behind trying to elect a new judge to the Supreme Court was based on the faith they shared.
:confused: I wonder why stupid BBC hasn't picked up on that one yet. :confused:

I never heard that, though I'm not surprised that some people in the media would make the claim. What's the source, and was it a direct quotation?
Which would upset the balance on the Abortion law trying to be passed equality of possitive vs. negative vote, effectively passing the law. If she does make it into the Court, then the law will be passed and religion will have played a part in passing a federal law! All this you call seperation of religion and politics? I say that's bull.
Bush would have appointed someone who would get the Abortion law passed regardless of what the person's faith is. This stance on the Abortion law is his party position.

As regards religion playing a part in passing law, I think it makes sense for them to be somewhat mingled. I think that people should pass laws in the way they think is right. By necessity, their religion or lack thereof will often impact how they view right and wrong. It also (whatever religion it may be) is central to the viewpoints of many voters. Religion must, to some extent, be meshed with politics.

Lief Erikson

10-26-2005, 02:51 AM

One thing my history professor said about "Kingdom of Heaven", which stars Orlando Bloom, is that he had a high respect for the film until Orlando said in his speech that they would be acting for religious freedom. That, according to my professor, would have been considered absolutely absurd. It wouldn't have gotten him killed. It would have gotten him thrown in the insane asylum.

Just thought I'd mention :).

Bran

10-26-2005, 08:45 PM

William Monahan, the screenwriter of the film, did extensive research on the subject of his screenplay, and was quoting historical documents from the actual speech given from Bloom's character, who actually lived and did (most of) those things he did in the movie. I agree with your history teacher that in the time period, he would have been thrown in an asylum for saying such things, but knowing that he actually did say those things is what made the movie so powerful for me. And as much as I think I would respect your professor, I doubt he researched into that paticular subject as much as William Monahan did.

Lief Erikson

10-27-2005, 12:50 AM

Embladyne

10-27-2005, 01:01 AM

Y'know, of Phillip Pullman's writings, His Dark Materials is my least favourite. I guess it just seemed too heavy handed in the end, and really put me off. It had some really great parts to it, and he writes well enough, but the themes just didn't jive with me.

Clockwork, however, is a favourite book of mine. A little horrifying at times, yes, but so is Roald Dahl.

The Gaffer

10-27-2005, 04:32 AM

I've never read any of this other stuff; will look it out.

jellyfishannah

12-02-2005, 03:03 PM

I love this series but i read them a bit out of order. I read The Subtle Knife first and that one remains my favorite one.

I think Embladyne is right in saying that they were a bit "heavy-handed" though I've never read any of Pullman's other works. The portrayal of Christianity and God was bit harsh and horrifying, really, to my young mind. I was 11. :) But it was a great series with a different feel to them than most children's books.

Acalewia

10-17-2007, 06:08 PM

I think it's high time to wake this thread up. Almost two years is long enough for a nap. And I'm sure with the upcoming movie there is going to be a lot of re reads and first time reads and discussion.

Just so you know, I'm one of those first time readers. I started it today and I have to say just the first few pages have me hooked.

The Gaffer

10-18-2007, 04:08 AM

Well, I'm jealous.

You have a fabulous journey ahead of you and I hope you enjoy it.

I guarantee it will surprise you.

BeardofPants

10-18-2007, 04:12 AM

I'm also envious... the first book is just amazing in terms of its scope & imagination.

Acalewia

10-19-2007, 12:14 PM

So I heard from a certian pants master and frog mod :p ;) :D

BeardofPants

10-19-2007, 01:22 PM

And I'm NEVER wrong.

*dances the I-AM-SO-RIGHT-I-AM-SOOOO-RIGHT chicken dance

Earniel

10-19-2007, 01:27 PM

Um. Right. What she said. :p

I'll be fair and say I did have a tiny number of problems with the trilogy. But on scenery, ideas and imagination, it was magnificent.

GrayMouser

10-19-2007, 02:27 PM

Acalewia- Warning!! SPOILERS!!!

I loved the first book, enjoyed the second and was disappointed with the third, but then I read them at age 50- I would have totally loved them at 12, in the first awakening of my militant atheism.

But, to my thinking, there is a serious moral flaw running right through the heart of the Trilogy, which becomes manifest at the end of the first book. Lord Asriel severs Roger Parslow from his daemon order to release the energy needed to open the gates between worlds. In Lyra's world, this is the worst of crimes; far worse than murder because it destroys the soul- yet even after that, through the next two books, the characters take the side of Asriel and his war to overthrow Authority and establish the Republic of Heaven. Asriel is seen as personally corrupted by his actions, but his cause is still seen as righteous.

Wordsworth wrote of the French Revolution:

OH! pleasant exercise of hope and joy!
For mighty were the auxiliars which then stood
Upon our side, we who were strong in love!
Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,
But to be young was very heaven!--

And that is Pullman's attitude- but the Fall of the Bastille was followed by the Reign of Terror; the Storming of the Winter Palace by the Gulag; the Long March by the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution; Year Zero by the Killing Fields.

Lenin said "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs", but Dosteovsky wrote that if you could produce Paradise on Earth by torturing a single child, it would still be wrong; Ursula LeGuin took the same view in "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas".

In "1984" Winston Smith is forced to listen to a recording of himself vowing to do anything to overthrow Big Brother- even throw acid in the face of a child. O'Brian, the Inner Part inquisitor, then asks him what the difference is between him and the system he is seeking to overthrow.

Lyra, and later, Will, and all the others who joined in the Noble Cause should have rejected it right then and there.

Or,as Pete Townshend put it:

We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgment of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
No, no!

I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
Though I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?

There's nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Are now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

The Gaffer

10-19-2007, 06:22 PM

Outstanding post, GM!

You rock.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a39/Jedijoe9/rockout.jpg

(EDIT: Hey, I put IMG tags around that pic and it doesnt display :mad: )

GrayMouser

10-21-2007, 03:22 AM

Outstanding post, GM!

You rock.

Thanks- it's easier when 90% is quotes from other people ;)

D.Sullivan

10-22-2007, 06:16 PM

Acalewia

10-22-2007, 08:24 PM

D.Sullivan

10-22-2007, 09:10 PM

You guys do know what spoiler tags are right? :D I'm having to skip over some of the posts. I'm glad you warned me that your post had spoilers, GM :D

I'm on Chapter three now. It's just getting better and better

Sorry, mate, I do know what they are, but I have forgotten how to do them. Would you mind reminding me?

Acalewia

10-22-2007, 09:20 PM

[Spoiler*]text[/spoiler*]

Of course without the astrik

Tessar

10-22-2007, 09:28 PM

I keep meaning to read these books... I'll have to try to remember these over my christmas break :D.

Acalewia

10-23-2007, 07:16 PM

Do read. So far the first one is awesome

AceKnight

11-05-2007, 09:25 PM

oK..I think i might check it out

Acalewia

11-08-2007, 09:15 PM

I finished GC. I loved it! I'll start the next book as soon as I have time to pick up a book

Acalewia

11-28-2007, 10:55 PM

I finished SK the other day. Great cliffhanger. I really don't have time at the moment to start AS