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

A worldly view of a biblical concept will never paint an accurate picture.

It is of note what is said here:

But what do THEY mean by free-will is it the Calvinistic chant or something else? Here let us have a look:

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

In another part he states much the same:

In essense - remove religion and we are free to be who and what we can be without the hiderance to an antiquated rule of thought and a gray headed old miser called god.

 

So what?

It is directly referencing that Religion can not dictate, mandate, and control what people can do or not do.

 

No, since the author of the article and the author of the book both state it "represents organized religion" (albeit in alagory).

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

Again read both the article but here is the short version:

He views organized religion as God, and it is the death of organized religion that will do away with God. He depiction of God illistrative to that extent as an idea or practice that is holding on to its power with frailty by any means necessary.

 

I am editting my lost post to make it a little more understandable. I was tired last night at work and...well I just didn't read over it till now.

So here the main paragraph revised.

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

Hope it makes more sense

 

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