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

[J.D.]

the battle in the movie is about no less than man's preservation of free will.

Not my words - Roger Ebert. Here's the link:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071206/REVIEWS/712060302

Last sentance of the third paragraph.

Any theological implications?

 

[J.D.]

This is the headline at this website:http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/S...04&path=!entertainment!books!&s=1037645508954

The Golden Compass' fantasy exploration of free will is beautiful, provocative

 

[Allan]

Not my words - Roger Ebert. Here's the link:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071206/REVIEWS/712060302

Last sentance of the third paragraph.

Any theological implications?

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

It is of note what is said here:

...They weren't murky in the original 1995 novel, part of the His Dark Materials trilogy by Philip Pullman, a best seller in Britain, less so here. Pullman's evil force, called the Magisterium in the books, represents organized religion, and his series is about no less than the death of God, who he depicts as an aged, spent force...

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

The Magisterium has a horror of the truth, because it represents an alternative to its thought control; the battle in the movie is about no less than man's preservation of free will.

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:

The struggle involves a mysterious cosmic substance named Dust, which embodies free will and other properties the Magisterium wants to remove from human possibility. By "mysterious," I mean that Dust appears throughout the movie as a cloud of dancing particles, from which emerge people, places and possibilities, but I have no idea under which rules it operates. Possibly it represents our human inheritance if dogma did not interfere.

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.

 

[Allan]

This is the headline at this website:http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/S...04&path=!entertainment!books!&s=1037645508954

So what?

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

 

[J.D.]

So what?

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

Don't you think the magisterium represents God himself to the atheist author?
I'll check back tomorrow for your response. Time for zzzz.

 

[Allan]

Don't you think the magisterium represents God himself to the atheist author?
I'll check back tomorrow for your response. Time for zzzz.

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:

...They weren't murky in the original 1995 novel, part of the His Dark Materials trilogy by Philip Pullman, a best seller in Britain, less so here. Pullman's evil force, called the Magisterium in the books, represents organized religion, and his series is about no less than the death of God, who he depicts as an aged, spent force...

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.

 

[Allan]

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

 

[J.D.]

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

Yes, it makes sense. Thank you for the reply.

I admit it's a bit of a push to try to get inside the author's head, especially when we don't know a lot about him except that he is an avowed atheist. I saw him on TV and he didn't pull any punches about it.

I just think it's interesting, and not accidental, that they chose the words "preservation of free will" to describe the movie. If they said "preservation of freedom to believe and worship according to one's conscience" we could let out a hearty amen, but that's not what they said. Apparently the implication is that man's free will is the supreme law of the universe. Isn't that what some Christian's also believe?

 

[Allan]

Yes, it makes sense. Thank you for the reply.

I admit it's a bit of a push to try to get inside the author's head, especially when we don't know a lot about him except that he is an avowed atheist. I saw him on TV and he didn't pull any punches about it.

I just think it's interesting, and not accidental, that they chose the words "preservation of free will" to describe the movie. If they said "preservation of freedom to believe and worship according to one's conscience" we could let out a hearty amen, but that's not what they said. Apparently the implication is that man's free will is the supreme law of the universe. Isn't that what some Christian's also believe?

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).