Who’s afraid of The Golden Compass? November 26, 2007
Posted by Paul Edwards in Film, Golden Compass, Philip Pullman, The Golden Compass.trackback
The Golden Compass is Book One of a fantasy trilogy written by English author Philip Pullman in the late 1990s called His Dark Materials. Philip Pullman is a militant atheist, unapologetically so. In a 2001 interview with the Washington Post Pullman is quoted as having said, “I’m trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief.”
The title for the trilogy comes from a line in John Milton’s Paradise Lost, and Pullman views his trilogy as a re-telling of Milton’s poem, which means that His Dark Materials is in reality a re-telling of the Genesis story in fantasy form. Interest in the series has been revived as New Line Cinema is set to release their theatrical version of The Golden Compass on December 7, just in time for the holiday movie going season.
The preemptive strike from the conservative Christian community, led by William Donahue of the Catholic League and Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association, has become more of a story than the release of the film itself. Donahue views the movie as an attack on Roman Catholicism, denouncing as “pro-atheist” both the movie and the book upon which it is based, and calling for a boycott of the film when it is released. In a recent press release The Catholic League warned their constituents that His Dark Materials “was written to promote atheism and denigrate Christianity, especially Roman Catholicism,” a charge Pullman denied in various interviews even before it was leveled. Donahue characterizes the trilogy as “atheism for kids” and the movie as “bait for the books.” The American Family Association, “because of Pullman’s clearly articulated anti-Christian motives,” is “warning all viewers to run from the film.”
In a strange twist of life imitating art, this reaction to The Golden Compass validates the image Pullman creates in his trilogy of Christians and of organized Christianity generally.
In Book Two of His Dark Materials, The Subtle Knife, the Queen of the Witches says,
“I don’t know who will join with us, but I know whom we must fight. It is the Magisterium, the Church. For all its history…it’s tried to suppress and control every natural impulse. And when it can’t control them, it cuts them out…That is what the Church does, and every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling. So if war comes, and the Church is on one side of it, we must be on the other.”
Pullman is not completely wrong when he characterizes the Church as an organization obsessed with holding power by suppressing and controlling. But such a Church is not the true Church as defined by Scripture. Contrary to Pullman’s depiction of the Church, Jesus never sought positions of power. On the contrary, he retreated to a mountain alone when the crowds came to make him king, and refused Satan’s offer to be granted all the kingdoms of the world. Jesus mandated that His followers deny themselves, lead by serving, humble themselves like children, and achieve true greatness at the end of a path of suffering and humility. Pullman’s depiction of the Church is a false one, but it does not follow that the Church Pullman depicts does not exist.
Throughout history people who have identified with the Christian faith have done horrible things in Jesus’ name. In the New Testament times, when the Church was in its infancy, the true Apostles combated those who claimed to be apostles, but were not, and tested them and found them to be false (Revelation 2:2). In the church at Corinth, the Apostle Paul identified men who were disguising themselves as apostles of Christ, calling them “false apostles” and “deceitful workman,” pointing out that “even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:13-15). Such false apostles are still within the Church today. The Apostle John warned “many antichrists have come,” and that not all who profess the faith are truly “of us” (1 John 2:18, 19).
Pullman chooses to identify as true what in reality is a false religion in the garb of Christianity, ignoring the work of the true Church in the world. Redefining good as evil is a plot element Pullman uses throughout the trilogy, and not just in relation to the Church. The books are a prime example of what Isaiah warned against when he said, “Woe to them who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness” (Isaiah 5:20). Our response should not be to merely paint Pullman as a liar and deceiver, denying that the Church he depicts doesn’t exist. On the contrary we should agree with Pullman that such a Church has existed, and still exists, but that it is not the genuine Church, as Pullman leads his readers to believe.
If The Golden Compass is a lie passing itself off as truth, is the appropriate course for us to run from it, to bury our heads in the cultural sand, pretending that, if ignored, challenges to the faith aren’t real? Would you deem it a valid response if your college freshman merely ran from the challenges to her faith she can expect from her atheistic philosophy professor? If not, why then would you encourage your children to run from the challenges to their faith implicit in Pullman’s trilogy?
It seems to me the proper response from those who are convinced of the truth ought to be to engage error, not run from it. Rather than fearing our children might read a book or see a film that challenges their faith, such a scenario presents us with an opportunity to teach them to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. We should read the books and see the movie with our children, engaging the difficult issues raised by Pullman, and allowing the True Compass, the word of God, to guide us into all truth, to bring to light the hidden things of darkness. Any other response from true followers of Jesus Christ only validates Pullman’s thesis that we Christians suppress and control, rather than engage in open and honest debate in a vibrant, passionate, and intelligent defense of the faith. Why not counter Pullman by being a living demonstration of the Church he fails to portray in his trilogy rather than validating him by being exactly what he says we are?
One way to engage the culture on this–which I’m going to be doing the week the film comes out–is to host a book discussion at your public library. Another blogger (whose name I forget now) did this with Dawkins’s God Delusion. I’m looking forward to the discussion.
The purpose is definitely not to bash Pullman, but to stand up his story side by side with the true story of Jesus Christ. Head-to-head, I think the truth can speak for itself.
Good post, Paul!
1 Peter 4:12-17
Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?
Dear Paul
for those of us who love to talk about our faith we should thank Phillip Pullman for making it so easy for us to bring up the topic of God’s amazing grace and goodness, not always an easy dinner party topic. however as part of the debate regarding the film we have a huge opening to share the goodnews, that darkness cannot hide from light, looking forward to some lively debates.
Very well written article, well done
Mo….. Uk
Mr. Edwards engages in the standard tactic of Christians trying to explain away the past misdeeds of the faithful: blame it on the fact that they were not “real” Christians. How do we know they weren’t real Christians? Because they were nasty people. Ah, that explains it.
That haven’t been said, I salute Mr. Edwards for being willing to engage those of other beliefs. There is a superstitious paranoia among most Christians these days that merely permitting others to think differently will result in the fall of gods from power.
@Skeptimal
1. If you can show us that the “past misdeeds” are the result of Christian Doctrine, we will all take responsibility for all. However, you don’t judge any belief systems based on the abuse of the system. Let me give you an example: what Hitler did is consistent with his view of what a human being is and is not. What Christ did is consistent with this views.
It might come as a surprise to you, but the name Christians comes from Christ. And to keep it simple, Christians should be like Christ; that does not mean we always are. But to claim that some past misdeeds are the result of the Christian faith is in fact missing the point.
2. Our faith is not blind. In fact, I’m a Christian because it makes the most sense, not because it does not. GK Chesterton once said that “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.”
God, most definetly does not need our help in defending Himself. And the fact is that God allows people to think differently. So, it’s kind of ironic to accuse Christians that they don’t allow people to think differently. Jesus loved being questioned. But before answering a question, He will try to put a follow up question just to see if the person is really interested in finding the answer.
Chesterton also said that “If there were no God, there would be no atheists.” So, think about it. If there were no Christians how would you be able to think differently?
God’s promise is still true today, as it was in the past. He is asking us to trust Him, His wisdom, His Son. Faith is to trust, not to blindly follow.
(Isaiah 55:6-7 NKJV) Seek the LORD while He may be found, Call upon Him while He is near. Let the wicked forsake his way, And the unrighteous man his thoughts; Let him return to the LORD, And He will have mercy on him; And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon.
(Jeremiah 9:23-24 NKJV) Thus says the LORD: “Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, Let not the mighty man glory in his might, Nor let the rich man glory in his riches; But let him who glories glory in this, That he understands and knows Me, That I am the LORD, exercising loving kindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth. For in these I delight,” says the LORD.
I’ll end with another Chesterton quote: “These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own.”
Interesting thoughts from Skeptimal.
The idea that the church is “an organization obsessed with holding power by suppressing and controlling.” Is something that I am currently struggling with, I see it a lot. On one hand you have the charismatic’s who use the “fresh word of the Lord” to often times rip people off of their finances. Then you have the Biblical inerrant folks who boldly proclaim that the Bible is perfect and then they take scripture (often out of it context) and impose it on their congregation. Of course a true Christian doesn’t question it because it could be questioning the inerrant, infallible, God breathed scripture. I really struggle with this concept. Who is the true church? I myself find folks like Brian McLaren refreshing, it seems like there is a real heartfelt desire to serve God and serve others. There is no need to deny the fact that throughout the centuries the text was modified, there is no need to make claims that it is perfect even though there are clear contradictions as the Bible is not held on a mantle like a Idol. I feel that scripture is vital, but I think too many “doctrines” have been established through the years where they were not intended to be. I wonder how Paul the Apostle feels about his private letters to the various churches becoming canon? Coincidentally, a lot of doctrines come from the epistles and not from the founder of our faith Jesus.
Benjamin,
People are people. I’m not “accusing” Christians of any behavior that you could not find committed by someone of any other doctrine or ideology. Stalin was an ex-Catholic atheist, for instance.
My point was not that you should take responsibility for anything beyond your own actions; instead, some of us would like it if some Christians would quit pretending that the crusaders, Nazi’s and Christian Identity idiots of the world were not really your brethren. They were. And they used the Bible to justify their actions, just like Al Qaeda uses the Islamic codes.
Personally, I’d be satisfied if Evangelical Christians would just admit that god doesn’t give Christians a monopoly on generosity, integrity, and wisdom.
You said: “And the fact is that God allows people to think differently. So, it’s kind of ironic to accuse Christians that they don’t allow people to think differently.”
I don’t recall having ever accused god of limiting anyone’s thinking. Why would that mean Christians don’t try to muzzle the brain when they can?
You said: ‘Chesterton also said that “If there were no God, there would be no atheists.” So, think about it. If there were no Christians how would you be able to think differently?’
I admit I don’t follow your logic. Think about it, if there were no Buddha, how would you as a Christian be able to think differently?
You said: ‘I’ll end with another Chesterton quote: “These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own.”’
You know? It’s funny…I’ve never seen any indication that Christians have been asked to praise anything other than Jesus. I *have* seen prominent Christians accuse non-Christian Americans of causing 9/11 by our unbelief. I have seen the government being subverted to fund faith-based initiatives with zero oversight. I’ve seen church leaders getting rich on the backs of their poor flocks and then funneling their ill-gotten gains into politics, all the while claiming to be persecuted for their faith. I’ve seen Christians rejoice in the suffering of people with AIDS. I’ve seen Christians blame victims of natural disasters for their own suffering. I’ve seen Christians arrogantly pronounce God’s judgment on cities and states for not voting to make anti-evolution voodoo doctrine equal to science. And I’ve seen Christians, who hold the presidency, the supreme court, and 99 percent of Congress, along with most of the state governments, talk radio, and Fox News, claim that they are being persecuted because they don’t have ABSOLUTE power.
Please forgive me if I don’t feel sorry for you.
@ Skeptimal
You continue to make sweeping claims about Christianity. Again, I’ll keep it simple for you: What would Jesus do? Would Jesus get rich on the backs of the poor flocks? Would Jesus do any of the things you mentioned? No.
Among your logical fallacies the most predominant seems to be the straw man fallacy. Here is the form:
1 Person A has position X.
2 Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3 Person B attacks position Y.
4 Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
One of my professors always said that you should let other people define themselves. I admit that it is easy to be confused nowadays with so many people that claim that they are Christians when they are definetly not. Just because I claim to be the president of USA does not mean that I am. Just because people claim they are Christians, it does not mean they are.
So, before making general claims and hasty generalizations, please take a moment to understand what Christianity really is. The term Christians literally means “follower of Christ”. So, you see my friend, Christians that are not like Christ is kind of an oxymoron.
A hateful Christian is an oxymoron.
A power thirsty Christian is an oxymoron.
A lover of money Christian is an oxymoron.
A proud Christian is an oxymoron.
A amoral Christian is an oxymoron.
A Christian rejoicing in someone’s pain is an oxymoron.
and so on …
I see that you are angry at what you perceive to be Christianity. I would challenge you to investigate more. Of course that the media will only you show you the “Christians” with their “God hate you” banners instead of showing you the Christian that volunteers at the nursing home. It’s better news.
As a citizen of this country, I think my opinion should be represented as much as the next guy, not more, not less.
In regards to the whole evolution/ID, when did the theory of evolution evolved in a fact? If it did then, my friend, you are completely right, we should all stand for truth.
Can I ask what is your motivation for posting your comments on this blog? Why even bother to be in the company of people that you consider that are like Nazis and Al-Qaeda? Are you just trolling? I’m a little confused. All you do is insult us. Is that a hobby of yours? Or are you maybe in search of something? Maybe an authentic Christianity?
What is your standard for good and evil? I mean, after all if all is relative, why do you even bother to say anything? If there is no God, we’re all just “dancing to our DNA” (Richard Dawkins). So, the next time someone rapes a little girl, go tell her father that the rapist was just dancing on his DNA.
I hope you don’t feel persecuted here and I’ll be waiting for your reply.
With respect,
Ben
Skeptimal,
While I am a Christian, I completely understand your concerns and issues. To be honest the things that you bring up are things I think about all the time, things that truly challenge my faith. My very fundamentalist wife thinks I am going off the deep end because I ask such serious questions about my faith. It’s as if ignorance is truly bliss. The teachings of Jesus are humanitarian, loving and just. The church is not that, as a whole, there are some that do care for the greater good of humanity but those are often written off as too liberal to be TRULY Christian.
You seem like someone who is an atheist or agnostic, which to many Christians equates to evil. I don’t see it as such; people who proclaim these things about atheist are too much in a box to read anything from Hitches, Harris or Dawkins. I have read some of their works and completely understand the view from the other side of the glass. This view has allowed me to step back and truly examine issues of life, unlike the normal Christian response of snapping to judgment because Dobson or Robertson said so. At this point I don’t accept evolution however; I am willing to accept that the Genesis story and idea of a 6000 year existence seems absurd. I believe in God, however, I am beginning to wonder if God is much bigger that the tiny box that Christianity has put him in.
You are right about the idea of Christians in this country thinking that they are the ones persecuted. I hear on right wing radio how the liberal media or Godless left wing media did this or that. What liberal media? the one that never challenged this right wing administration on anything? The only difference is CNN ABC etc is not as blatant about its bias as Fox News. We are not the ones that are persecuted, Christians are in control in this country, Look at the presidential candidates, if one of the leading guys actually admitted that they didn’t believe in God and that Science has proven evolution to be true it would be the end to their run. Where is the persecution? When you understand the value of always creating an enemy to rally the people to fight against you understand how our Christian leaders have been able to really people behind many of the causes to fit their agenda(in the name of God).
I am a Christian, I will repeat, however, I am completely disgusted with the organization/business of Jesus. I appreciate folks like Brian Mclaren who have also stepped back from our closed door faith to try to understand the real message of Jesus. It has created a movement of loving Christians who realize that you don’t have to be republican to be a Christian, or you don’t have to legislate your values to all people. Christians should reach people on a personal level not a theocratic level…..
Pixelmaster I have few questions for you:
What’s today’s world’s biggest problem? What is the “real message of Jesus” ? Why did He come into this world?
Ben,
I actually read Dawkins book the God Delusion and I actually agree with him that you don’t have to be a person of faith to be moral. I don’t agree with a lot in his book but that part I agree with. There is a lot of injustice done throughout the centuries, in God’s name. So I think is it moot to use that as a standard.
Ben,
You said “What’s today’s world’s biggest problem? What is the “real message of Jesus” ? Why did He come into this world?”
I am sure my answer will determine to you if I am truly a christian or not. If I said,
What’s today’s world’s biggest problem? SIN
What is the “real message of Jesus” ? We are sinners in need of a saviour.
Why did He come into this world? To die for our SIN’s
Then I think you would agree that I fit into the fundementalists view of a real christian.
This is the way I was raise and is my current worldview, however, when I see corrupt nature of those who espouse this view I wonder if we have his message wrong. I am trying to step out of my fundemetalist box and view the world in a new way.
So yes, I believe that for now, I seek God to show me the truth of his ways.
Pixelmaster, I’m sure that you are disappointed with a lot of what’s going on in today’s churches. I think God is not that pleased either.
However, the emergent movement is not the solution. Just because Satan believes 1+1 =2, it does not mean that I have to deny that fact because Satan believes it. In the same way, just because some of those who have similar answers to yours have a “corrupt nature”, it’s not a reason to deny the truth of your beliefs.
I remember Francis Schaeffer had the same problem. He knew the gospel to be true, but he had doubts because of how some churches were acting. He stopped and he separated the two.
I think Ghandi also said about Christianity: “I like their Christ, I don’t like their Christians”.
You said you are a fan of Brian Mclaren. He definetly would’ve answered those questions differently than you.
This world needs a heart transplant not a simple makeup.
If we solve the heart issue, everything else will follow.
Ben,
You said –Why even bother to be in the company of people that you consider that are like Nazis and Al-Qaeda? Are you just trolling? I’m a little confused. All you do is insult us.–
Let me be clear: I do not equate Christianity with the Nazis or al-Qaeda. My point was that being a Christian didn’t prevent those people from being Nazi’s, Christian Identity idiots, or crusaders. I said point blank at the beginning of my last post that people are people, and I’m not accusing Christians of being anything other than human.
Nor have I insulted Christianity at all, unless being part of the human race is an insult to you. Given that you say “real” Christians can’t be hateful, power-thirsty, greedy, arrogant or immoral, you may actually regard humanity as an insult. The evidence is before us in history, however, that Christians are no more generous and no less hateful than anyone else.
I understand that you don’t believe that Christians who are hateful, greedy, power-thirsty, etc. have had a rebirth experience. Please understand that from my perspective, that appears to be a convenient means for you to explain away unpleasant truths. The fact that you don’t believe they’re “saved” doesn’t make their experience less valid than your own.
As for why I’m here…I think it’s a good idea to engage those who disagree with you. For instance, I’ve also talked with Muslims who don’t understand why the free world has such a dim view of Islam.
religions* are*
But the major organized religion IS obsessed with holding power by suppressing and controlling. -_-
Read the books ….. see the movie.
Pixel,
Thank you for the thought you put into your post the other day. I wish more Christians thought like you, frankly. I think most Christians equate open-mindedness with lack of faith. They consider it a sin to see both sides of an issue.
There is a lot of action-reaction that takes place between people of faith and free thinkers. To free thinkers, religious people engage in “us vs. them” circular reasoning, and we feel that we’re treated as second-class citizens or enemies to democracy. To people of faith, we infidels are plotting attacks against their churches and children, rubbing our hands together in evil glee as we scheme to turn them into Satan-worshipping, 666-tattooed members of the anti-christ political party.
Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and the rest are angry, and I don’t blame them. Even so, I think they (and I at times) let the fact that our anger is justified get in the way of progress. Many people of faith *are* people of faith because they want to make the world a better place. If they would eventually realize free thinkers also want to make the world a better place, mutual respect might someday be possible.
@Skeptimal
In 2001, 76.7% of American adults identified themselves as Christian. Are you telling me that you believe that we should make our judgment on Christianity based on how these 76.7% act? I would answer: how convenient for you.
How convenient for you to define Christianity however pleases you. So, you want to continue to commit the straw-man fallacy to push forward your argument, that’s ok. You continue to redefine what Christian means.
It seems to me that your definition of Christian is something like this: whoever claims that is a Christian is a Christian.
Now, you don’t need a BA in philosophy to see the logical error behind this definition. Asylums are full of people that claim to be Jesus Christ, does that mean that they are? If I claim to be a car, does that make me a car?
You and me both know why people chose to identify themselves as Christians through the ages: it was convenient and a la mode. There were times and there still are in some countries where it’s not that convenient and there is where you can find that the people that identify themselves as Christian are real Christians.
In that sense, I admire you. Is still quite tough to be an agnostic/atheist in this country. But it’s becoming a la mode with time. The stereotype is growing legs. Christians are more and more believed to be some idiots who still believe in fairy tales.
You said: “The evidence is before us in history, however, that Christians are no more generous and no less hateful than anyone else.” If you choose to be ignorant, that is your choice; however, if you have eyes to see and ears to hear it’s impossible to make such a claim. Millions and millions of lives have been transformed by God and they stand as a light in the darkness. The problem is that this world chooses to be blind.
Again, as a Christian I can’t take credit for the good in my life. It really is all by God’s grace. Even my faith is a gift from God. Sometimes I wish I could take credit and feel therefore superior to non-Christian people, but I can’t.
I admire your interest. I hope it’s honest and you keep an open mind about this. Now, my final question is Do you dismiss the Christian Truth because you believe that Christians are really not that different after all?
This is the most common fallacy that people make when they deny the Christian Truth based on someone’s living/not-living of it.
This is a fallacy known as Ad Hominem Tu Quoque. This is the raw format:
1 Person A makes claim X.
2 Person B asserts that A’s actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3 Therefore X is false.
1. Bill Clinton makes the claim that Christianity is true.
2. Skeptimal asserts that Clinton’s actions are inconsistent with the truth of Christianity.
3. Therefore Christianity is false.
I don’t know why I picked Clinton
Anyway, the truth here is that any belief system should be judged on what it follows logically from it, not the other way.
If you can prove me that any “evil” action is the result of the Christian belief then your point is well taken. However, most people, even Christians, do bad things in spite of their Christian beliefs, not because of them. So, it’s not Christianity’s fault. It is that person’s fault that did not follow the Christian principles.
Take for example, human dignity and human equality. How do you justify them? A Christian will tell you simply: We were made in the image of God so we have intrinsic value. We are not equal to animals, and there is no difference in human value in between us.
Now, try this with any other system. An atheistic/agnostic world view can’t account for human dignity and human equality. After all, if we’re just another animal that lives here on this planet as the results of time, matter and chance combined and it’s all about the “survival of the fitness” how can you justify those values? It sounds completely random to believe that a human life is superior to a bug’s life. Let’s not even talk about human equality. Why even bother helping the poor, the ill, the handicap person? After all it’s all about survival.
That was just a simple example. That’s why when Hitler did what he did he was consistent with evolution/agnosticism/atheism world view. He did not do it in spite of his beliefs; He did it because of his beliefs.
Skeptimal,
As Christians, we are programmed that anything out disagrees with our small paradigm of life is of the devil. This is why so many people of faith are unwilling to open a book by an atheist because “The devil inspired the writing of their book through their thoughts.” I am on a journey of truth where ever that takes me. In my journey I have come across 3 main worldviews of how we got here. 1. Creationism(Monotheistic), 2. Evolution and 3. Extraterrestrial There may be more but I simply haven’t gone that far. What really bothers me as a christian is that when the facts are layed out, my belief seems to have the least amount of facts. Of course, my christian bretheren would say that God hidden the truth from the blind. This fits well with the elect theory of Christianity. I agree with you that Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris come across as angry, however, I now see where we christians come across as arrogant. Unlike the scienctific method, we as christian (Islam and Judism can be included) hold the absolute truth when it comes to our creation, and the nature of God, Sciece says, we don’t know How can we say that the world was created 6000 years ago when there is proof that people were here over 10000 years ago?
Ben,
You mentioned about using a straw man method earlier, and you just did the same thing when you wrote. “An atheistic/agnostic world view can’t account for human dignity and human equality.” The Atheists that I know of care more for their human counterparts than most Christian, especially in America. Christian’s have backed this unjust war in Iraq without question, why, their christian pastors, christian talk shows, Christian leaders and Christian president said so. Many Atheist in this country have spoken out against it, why, because it is morally wrong to overthrow a nation because of Oil. And that is the reason why, the evidence is overwhelming. This obviously is not the case in ALL instances, Hitchens is an atheist and he is for the war and there are many “thinking” christians who realize that this plundering of human life is just wrong.
Also, with regards to hitler, I don’t know his personal faith but he was very closly tied to the catholic church, I don’t think he every claimed atheism.
One more thing about what you said regarding Human equality, what about the Biblical justification of slavery? Christians prior to 1860 were biblically sound when they justified having slaves.
@Pixelmaster
I never said that atheist/agnostic people are immoral. All I said was that they don’t have a good reason to be moral. There is no morality without God. There is no reason to believe that human life is worth more than a bug’s life.
Try to understand the difference here. Human dignity and equality can not be the result of a agnostic/atheistic world view. Let’s not even open the topic of GOOD and EVIL. If there is no moral standard good and evil can’t be defined. So, an atheist/agnostic that calls something evil is an oxymoron.
ok, I get really offended when people talk about these books in a bad way! “His Dark Materials” are the best books I’ve EVER read! BUT! I am glad that it mentions that you can read the book anyway because most people have NEVER read it but tell you to “boycott” the movie!! I cant STAND that!! Thank you for revealing both sides!!
My comment relates to Paul’s suggestion that parents should take their children to see the movie and read the books with them.
I would caution that not all children should be exposed to this material, for some have not the maturity developmentally and/or spiritually to fully engage the material, and are thus susceptible to the insidious lies.
@Pixelmaster
I now you try to play it cool and that’s really nice of you. However, I never said that atheists and agnostics are immoral. All I said is that their world view can not justify being moral or immoral. They don’t have a base on which they can justify that human life is different in value than a bug’s life. They can’t even make moral judgments. They have no objective standard. For them, morality is subjective. And if it’s subjective , it is like me saying that I like Coca-Cola. It’s all relative. How do they even justify human free will? After all, everything is determined.
Nietzsche knew exactly what was the result of “killing God”. You can’t have the Christian values: love, good, kindness, justice and so on without the Christian God. People want to get rid of God and keep all those values. You can’t do that. You can live with those values, but as an agnostic/atheist you have no justification for them.
Most of my philosophy classes in college were about how to save those values. The result is always the same: futile. How can you develop any kind of an ethic code when you don’t have a objective standard? How can you justify intrinsic value of the human life if we’re just another evolved animal?
So, until atheists can justify how anything is morally wrong, they have no justification to argue against anything.
In conclusion, if you are an atheist/agnostic, you can’t save the Christian values without the Christian God.
Here is what Nietzsche said:
“When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole. It stands or falls with faith in God”
The problem is that a lot of today’s atheists and agnostics are either coward or lazy. They are either coward and don’t go where their belief system would lead them, or they are lazy and don’t even bother to investigate more on what they believe.
Nietzsche was clearly not a coward; he took his beliefs seriously enough and went wherever his system would take him.
So, when I see any atheists or agnostics making moral judgments I need an explanation on what base does he make those judgments.
@ Kelsey
How would you react if someone would write a book that has the purpose of making everyone around you hate you? Would you give that book to your kids with an open heart? Would you go see the movie and therefore support that person that wrote nasty things about you?
See, the author made it clear that the purpose of his book is to undermine the basis of Christian belief. Why should I buy his book? Why should I spend my money to see the movie?
An FBI agent once said that he does spend time investigating all the counterfeit money out there; instead, he spends time investigating the authentic bills. In the same way, I would recommend that we spend more time on the authentic thing, rather than the counterfeit.
@ Bill Connell
I have to agree with you on this one. I’m not going to start giving this book or a Bertrand Russell’s book to someone who’s not even that familiar with the authentic Christianity first. I don’t want my friends/relative to read how others define Christianity before they first understand what Christianity is all about.
That being said, I’m surprised that in general most Christian students are more familiar with the atheists’ books than other non-Christian students. That is a great thing.
See, the great advantage with defending the truth is that we’re defending the truth. Can you imagine how hard it must be to defend a lie?
Ben,
This wasn’t directed at me, but you said: “How would you react if someone would write a book that has the purpose of making everyone around you hate you?”
Free thinkers don’t have to imagine that. It happens every day. We can also hear casually phrased hatred aimed at us daily on religious radio, talk radio, CBN, TBN, and Fox News. I listen to it, and I encourage other free thinkers to listen to it, because we need to know what propaganda is being shoveled out. I’m thinking you haven’t experienced being accused of hating America recently.
You also said: “See, the author made it clear that the purpose of his book is to undermine the basis of Christian belief.”
If you have found a quote where Pullman says his goal is to undermine Christianity, it would be helpful to see that posted here. It may be true, but you can’t tell that by reading Golden Compass.
You said: “That being said, I’m surprised that in general most Christian students are more familiar with the atheists’ books than other non-Christian students.”
It would also be helpful to know why you think this is true. In my experience, most Christian students aren’t even familiar with the Bible, much less skeptical books.
You said: “In 2001, 76.7% of American adults identified themselves as Christian. Are you telling me that you believe that we should make our judgment on Christianity based on how these 76.7% act?”
I’m sure that some claim to be Christians because it makes life easier. If we are not going to assume the majority of people are what they say they are, then how do we determine who is a Christian? In your view, we can only accept them as Christians if you agree with their actions. I’m sorry, but I don’t think you’d accept the same standard from someone of another belief set.
Once again: I am not saying Christians are worse than anyone else. I’m not even saying Christianity hasn’t conributed to civilization. I’m just saying that it’s ridiculous to say that there’s no such thing as Christian greed, power-thirst, or hatefulness. Certainly having a “born-again” experience is worthless for predicting whether someone is going to be a better person.
You make the assumption that groups can be judged by their intent, not by the outcome of their actions. I can’t agree with that as a solitary rule. Communism had noble goals and dogma. Scientology claims to merely want a world without war, crime, and insanity. Islam claims to be a religion of peace. Adherents of these ideologies also claim that the reason things haven’t worked out as planned is because people haven’t follow the rules correctly. I doubt you would embrace those groups, even though you share their approach to judging your own ideology.
@Skeptimal
It would be helpful if you read the post before commenting on it. The first paragraph of this post by Paul says:
“The Golden Compass is Book One of a fantasy trilogy written by English author Philip Pullman in the late 1990s called His Dark Materials. Philip Pullman is a militant atheist, unapologetically so. In a 2001 interview with the Washington Post Pullman is quoted as having said, “I’m trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief.””
That’s where the quote comes from. You can click on the link and see it for yourself.
You said also: “If you have found a quote where Pullman says his goal is to undermine Christianity, it would be helpful to see that posted here. It may be true, but you can’t tell that by reading Golden Compass.”
Now, if you can’t tell that, it means he’s just a horrible writer. He has something in mind and he can’t accomplish it. So, either rejecting him for his incompetence or for his intentions makes no difference to me.
Again, I hate repeating myself for the 3rd time, but I can’t accept your definition of what a Christian is. Again, if someone claims he’s a fish, does that make him a fish?
Also, I never said that “we can only accept them as Christians if you agree with their actions”. This really is not about that. It is about being born again. Being a follower of Christ. How can I accept someone that claims to be a Christian if she/he don’t even believe Jesus is a real person, or that He was resurrected? How can I accept as Christian someone who denies that Jesus is God’s Son, when He made it clear that He was? How can I accept someone that claims he/she is a Christian when they don’t love God and His word?
I’ll leave you with some passages from the Bible. Please read them, they explain better than I could. False Christianity is not new.
Matthew 7:15-19
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
Matthew 12:33-37
“Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil.I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
Matthew 13:24-30
He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’”
See, on this earth we can all be pretenders. We can pretend that we are Christians; however, the harvest is coming soon. Jesus knows His church and when He comes he’ll separate the true Christians from the pretenders and the rest.
Jesus did not come into this world to make us better people; He came here to make us alive. We are born as slaves into sin and only Jesus can save. It might come to you as a surprise, but Jesus’ main goal is not to make this world better. It is not to make all the people “good people”. Jesus is not your guru; He is not just a moral teacher among many. Jesus is UNIQUE. He is the son of God, and He wants it all. He does not want only our intentions, our actions or our mind. He wants it all.
Jesus said:
” And he said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.”
That is authentic Christianity.
Ben,
You’re correct that I should have noticed the Washington Post reference. Your point is made that the book is contrarian.
Regarding definitions of Christian, you have made it clear that you do not agree with accepting the word of people who call themselves Christian that they are, in fact, Christian. Your actual definition of Christian, if I understand you correctly, is someone whose heart has been changed by (the holy spirit?) through a born-again experience. You seem to state as fact that such a person would be incapable of greed, hatefulness, power thirst, arrogance or amorality.
If I understand you correctly, your definition has no practical value for any discussion of actual human behavior. You’ve created a definition that can’t be tested. We can not confirm that any given person has been touched by god and then watch their behavior to see if it actually makes a difference in their actions toward their fellow men. Neither does your definition allow us to look back at the actions of people who’ve claimed to have a born-again experience, because the minute they do something hateful, your definition strips them of their Christianity.
Of course I disagree with your definition. I see no evidence that a born-again belief in god has prevented anyone from the same greed and avarice that is common to all human beings. There is an assumption in the U.S. that people of faith are good people and free thinkers are not, and it is a faulty assumption that Americans buy into merely because the majority of them are Christians.
@Skeptimal
I’m glad that you understand overall where I am standing.
You said:”You seem to state as fact that such a person would be incapable of greed, hatefulness, power thirst, arrogance or amorality.”
I never claimed that they are incapable of all that. I know first hand that Christians are capable of all that. I am capable of all that too.
What I wanted to make clear was this: If a Christian acts that way, it is not because he/she is a Christian. He/she acts that way in spite of being a Christian.
Now, you also claimed that you did not see any difference between Christians and non-Christians. That is really sad. Jesus also said to one of the churches:(Rev.3:1)
“To the angel of the church in Sardis write: These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead.”
Now, on the other hand, I’ve seen hundreds of transformed lives. It is not wise to compare ourselves to anyone else. The only comparison in these people’s lives is between how they were before they were Christians and how they are now. There is a radical transformation that takes place. They are not perfect by any means, but they are transformed.
This is not about a contest about who’s better. To claim that we’re good people, and nonbelievers are not good people, is ludicrous. There are plenty of moral, good people that are unbelievers.
The question for anyone is this: are we good enough? God created you not to be “good”, but to be perfect.
This is what the Bible says:
“For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” (Rom. 3:22b-26)
See, Christian, non-Christian we all failed to do what we were created for: to glorify God through our perfect lives. That’s why keeping scores is useless. God, in His grace and mercy has opened the door for us to be considered perfect in His eyes.
C.S. Lewis said once that until you try to be good you don’t realize how bad you are. I see in your comments that you agree with the Bible and see the human depravity in everyone else and in you. Now the question is what are you going to do about yourself? Are you going to try harder? Jesus made it clear that however hard you try, you can’t make it without His help.
So, let them think they’re better just because they call themselves Christians. In the end, only the final Judge can call you good. And He will call you good based on one thing and one thing only: did you trust His Son or not?
With respect,
Ben
Ben,
You said: “This is not about a contest about who’s better. To claim that we’re good people, and nonbelievers are not good people, is ludicrous. There are plenty of moral, good people that are unbelievers.”
I agree that this is not a contest, and I appreciate your acknowledgement that you can be a moral and good person without believing in gods. Don’t worry; I recognize that you also believe any goodness and morality comes from god and that a good and moral unbeliever is an unusual thing. I’m just glad you think it can happen.
You said: “I never claimed that they are incapable of all that. I know first hand that Christians are capable of all that. I am capable of all that too. What I wanted to make clear was this: If a Christian acts that way, it is not because he/she is a Christian. He/she acts that way in spite of being a Christian.”
Adherents of every belief system would echo your words and apply them to their own faith. Muslims use similar words to explain why Islam is not a violent religion. Scientologists will say that their people fail because they haven’t followed “the tech” closely enough. Mormons would certainly say the same as you’ve said.
This is the crux of our disagreement and the point at which we will not be able to agree: you will probably say that, on balance and over time, the life of a Christian believer will show greater positive change than the life of someone from another faith or the life of a free thinker. I don’t think there’s evidence of that, and I know for a fact that belief in the divinity of Jesus is not a prerequisite for belief in the value of kindness, generosity, forgiveness, and humility. People pursue those things because they have seen the value of them in their own lives. They don’t pursue them because Jehovah, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius, or L. Ron Hubbard said to.
You believe that those values can not be achieved without your particular god, and that is a disagreement we will not be able to bridge. Despite that, I support and would fight for your rights to practice your faith freely and to voice your beliefs (outside of government), as long as you don’t try to abridge the equal rights of free thinkers. I hope you’ll return the favor.
@Skeptimal
Isn’t that a nice nice: free thinkers? Free from what?
Anyway, we’re entering a different discussion here. That is: Can anyone be good without God? and to be more clear: Can anyone define what good and evil are without God? In my short history on this earth, I did not see one reasonable argument of how you can define good and evil without God.
Maybe you miss my quote from Nietzsche:
“When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole. It stands or falls with faith in God”
Nietzsche understood what it means to be a “free thinker”. It means to wipe out all the notions of love, justice, freedom, benevolence and so on. People only follow Nietzsche in what’s convenient for them; they don’t go all the way and see where their thinking leads them to.
Again, I’m not arguing that “free thinkers” are immoral or more evil than other people. What I’m arguing is that “free thinkers” don’t have an objective moral standard. And without one, any moral claim is in vain. If you can’t even define what wrong and right are, I see no reason not to just follow your desires without restrictions wherever they will lead you.
In fact, for me, a moral “free thinker” is a very odd person. On one hand, he’s so free and a deeper thinker. On the other hand, he does something completely irrational: he tries to be moral. Why? When he has no moral standard defined?
Read some “free thinkers”, and you will see this irrationality that surrounds them.
I’m not asking you to become a Christian just because it worked in some other people’s life. Like you said, other faiths seem to give “good” results too. I’m asking you to become a Christian because Jesus is the Son of God. There is no other person that has lived and claimed that they were perfect, not Mohamed, not Buddha, not Confucius. Jesus made extraordinary claims about himself. He was either telling the truth or he was lying. Read his words and make a decision. That’s how you become a Christian.
I would like to enter back into this conversation. Being an ex conservative Christian and one who is entering the liberal Christian camp, I can look at your argument Ben and see flaws in it. See your theology, which I am assuming is close to what I understand of Mr. Edwards preaches that we are all bad, born bad and getting worse as we get older. Until we encounter Christ we are bad, and even then we are bad but Christ gives us a moral compass to live by. However, I have spent the time to read Sam Harris’ book letter to a Christian Nation and he points out that just because community is “Christian” doesn’t mean that it is more “moral” than one that is not. He points out areas in the south that are hugely Christian where crime is more prevalent than areas more secular. I think, as a “leftist” Christian that God built in all people a moral code to try to do good to others. That is why it makes a person feel good to give, or to help someone else out in need. I think that Christians and secularist share in this experiences. If you stick to the no morals without God theory then you need to explain how hosts of other societies around the world live in peace and harmony without God. I am also assuming you are referring to the Christian God, since all others are false according to Christian theology.
Ben,
What angers you about the phrase “freethinker?” It’s not exactly a new term, and it’s one I’ve used in other posts.
Wikipedia: “Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic and not be compromised by emotion, authority, tradition, or any dogma. The cognitive application of freethought is known as freethinking, and practitioners of freethought are known as freethinkers.”
Regarding morality: you are stating an article of faith as if it were self-evident fact. You keep saying that there can be no objective moral standard apart from your particular god. Since when? Every culture at every point in history has had ethics and morality (admittedly some better than others by modern standards). Belief in Jehovah was not necessary for these other ethical systems.
I choose to believe your attempts to convert me to Christianity are inspired by generosity and concern that Jesus will otherwise make me an eternal crispy critter. With all due appreciation, it’s (conversion’s) not going to happen, so if you’re only talking to me to accomplish that goal, you’re going to tire out shortly.
If you’re actually trying to pursue logic and communicate your point of view logically, then please start by imagining what it would be like if there were rational points of view that existed outside Bible-believing, born-again Christianity.
Ben
Here is a portion from John Calvin’s commentary on Romans 2:14. Hope this sheds a little light on this subject.
… since they prove by their own deeds that they have some rule of righteousness: for there is no nation so lost to every thing human, that it does not keep within the limits of some laws. Since then all nations, of themselves and without a monitor, are disposed to make laws for themselves, it is beyond all question evident that they have some notions of justice and rectitude, which the Greeks call preconceptions προληψεις, and which are implanted by nature in the hearts of men. They have then a law, though they are without law: for though they have not a written law, they are yet by no means wholly destitute of the knowledge of what is right and just;…
@Pixelmaster:
You claim that you are an ex-conservative. Maybe you were, but I have to say that you never understood it.
This is what you said:”your theology, which I am assuming is close to what I understand of Mr. Edwards preaches that we are all bad, born bad and getting worse as we get older. Until we encounter Christ we are bad, and even then we are bad but Christ gives us a moral compass to live by”
See, that right there proves me that you really didn’t get it. Christianity is not about bad and good. Those are nice. It is about holy and not holy. It is not about being a little bad or getting worse as we get older. God created us and gave us a few commandments to follow. Let’s start with the most important one: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.”
Now, did you follow that? Did anyone follow that? If yes, then by all means, this whole Jesus business is not for you. You see, your standard and God’s standard are not the same.
You can call yourself good but God has a different standard.
Also, you don’t seem to understand what we mean by “original sin”. It does not mean that we’re as bad as we can be without God. It means that we’re corrupted.
Jesus came to die on the cross so we can be saved! Saved from God’s wrath!
As for the moral argument, please try to understand that I’m not saying that non-believers are as bad as they can be. All I am saying is that there is no objective moral standard without God. To put it more bluntly: how can you say that raping a kid is wrong, if God does not exist? If it’s not objective, you can’t say that.
@ Skeptimal
So you are what we call a logical positivist.
Can I ask to prove me this statement: “Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic and not be compromised by emotion, authority, tradition, or any dogma.”
And please prove it to me by logic and science.
See, logical positivism is a self-defeating world view. Not very logical too me.
It’s like saying that all truth is relative. Now, is that statement true? It can’t be, since all truth is relative. Therefore, what do you have?
You don’t seem to understand the difference between objective and subjective:”Every culture at every point in history has had ethics and morality (admittedly some better than others by modern standards)”
Objectivity has nothing to do with “modern standards”.
People deciding what’s wrong and right is not objective. It is subjective.
I see that you hold logic in high regards. That’s great. But I also see that you exclude from start even the possibility of the existence of God. See, there are smart and rational people on both camps: Christian and non-Christian. In the end is not the lack of evidence that stops people from becoming Christians.
Would you even admit it as a possibility?
Most of my atheists friends would admit it that they made their decision about God’s existence very early in their life and don’t want to go back and think about it anymore. In general, they realize the change that their lives would require if this “whole thing was true”. so, they prefer to stick with their decision because status quo is always better.
Now, I don’t know when you made your decision. I will however, challenge you, that it was not a logical decision, it was rather emotional.
Here’s another question for you: How does time matter and chance add up together and give you logic? reason?
@ Don Sivyer
Great quote. Thanks.
Ben,
You keep responding to what you imagine a freethinker believes rather than what one actually does. From what I understand of logical positivism, for instance, you may be right in labeling me so, but I question whether you understand what that is, because you seem to equate that with a belief that all truth is subjective. In fact, you seem to think that any belief system but Christianity posits that all truth is subjective. There is much irony in your accusation that I do not understand the difference between objective and subjective.
All through your posts, you seem to rely on stating doctrine as if it were established fact. Only Christianity offers objective truth, in your view, but that is a statement of faith, not fact. You have to start with the assumption that Christianity is true in order to accept what you’re saying here. It’s circular logic.
I also do not exclude the possibility of the existence of gods, but I consider them highly unlikely as gods are traditionally understood. I do dismiss the possibility of Biblical inerrancy, just as I dismiss the Koran, the Book of Mormon, and Greek and Roman mythology.
You say: “In the end, is not the lack of evidence that stops people from being Christians.” That is, of course, a statement of blind faith rather than fact. It is also wholly untrue.
The statement you make about your atheist friends (who are not like any atheists I’ve known) is true about most Christians I’ve known. Their family or some emotional experience persuaded them Christianity was true, and they would rather torture logic for the rest of their lives than accept a reality that does not include life after death.
Now I don’t know why you made your decision to deny reality, but I will challenge you that it was not a logical decision. It was rather emotional.
@ Skeptimal
When did I accused you of claiming that all truth is subjective? That was an example for what a self-defeating system is.
I accused you of a subjective morality. I also accused free thinkers of having a self-defeating world view. Here is how you defined yourself: “a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic”. That is your belief. Now, is this belief formed based on science and logic? Yes or no?
And even if I were to accept your self-defeating belief, how can you go from science and logic to good and evil?
Ravi Zacharias argues this way:
If we say there is such a thing as evil, then there must be such a thing as good. If there is such a thing as good, then there must be a moral law on the basis of which we differentiate between good and evil.
If there is a moral law, then it must have originated from some source. If that source is to be objectively binding on humans, than that source must be above humans. Not only must that source be above humans, that source must be that to which humans are forced to answer–otherwise, good and evil have no transcendent meaning.
I see that I touched a never with you and I will respectfully back up. Please accept my apologizes if I hurt your feelings.
Life is really more than:
“A tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
Life is more that “dancing to our DNA”.
We have meaning and a purpose in life. And it is not self-made.
You can ignore it or accept it. Your decision!