Does anyone want to talk about the Golden Compass?

I don\'t mean to nitpick, but I want to make sure we\'re clear on this: In the Holy Eucharist, we partake of the body and blood of the God-man Jesus Christ. He is \"ever eaten, yet never consumed.\" We who eat his flesh and drink his blood abide in him, and he in us. So we do eat God, in the sense that we eat and drink the flesh and blood of Jesus. Obviously this does not involve eating the divine nature, though! It sounds like that is what you were trying to say, but I just wanted to clarify.

Thanks for clarifying. Eating God sounds so cannibalistic. Partaking, Receiving, Communing are all easier to digest, pardon the pun.

Well, dear Presbytera, that\'s why so many left following the Lord when He told them, quite literally, \"Eat Me\" in John Chap. 6. They thought it sounded cannibalistic. But the Lord was quite serious. It is interesting to note that many Protestants, who interpret almost everything else in the Bible literally, insist that John 6 is figurative. The Orthodox intrepretation from the beginning is literal on this point. Holy Communion is the literal Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Who is God, therefore, we eat God. And, as Fr. Alexander Schmemman related--we are what we eat. So, we eat God and by God\'s grace and mercy become gods. (Although, not in the Mormon sense.) To attempt to clarify Namees point, we DO partake of the Divine Nature (as St. Peter says in his epistle as well), however, it would seem to me that Holy Communion relates to the energies, not the essence of God. I could be wrong.

You are right, Presvytera! When I wrote my original post, I was trying to address something which I still find difficult to explain. There is a lot of hype about this movie amongst Christians, but I don\'t know that it\'s much to worry about. Just because the movie or the books are \"anti-God\" doesn\'t mean that they\'re talking about our God. The world\'s concept of God, and some non-Orthodox conceptions of God, have nothing to do with the true God. A lot of atheists and agnostics get into a position of hating God. But they don\'t know the real God. Just a false God that\'s been fed to them through one channel or another. Is this a bit clearer? It\'s a false god who judges, condemns, and punishes them for everything, not the God Who became incarnate and willingly endured crucifixion for our love.

I agree with ReaderJohn. I read an article (Frederica Matthewes-Green maybe?) that pointed out that this author leaves out a Christ in his allegory. That would make the author\'s god (whom he\'s smashing) different from our god.

Yay!!! We agree on something! It\'s a happy day. :)

Exactly!

bump?

I think we\'re having a problem with display of the last post again...

no, something else is happening... I only see the first page and nothing else, even though the URL says I\'m on page 2, 3, or 4.

nevermind. It\'s fixed.

Dear Friends in Christ, ISTM no one takes talking animals seriously as a threat to faith in Christ; if that is what atheism produces, it is child\'s play. As for movies people had a real sense of antipathy to, for its violent and antisemitic imagery, and its attention to the detail\'s of our LORD\'s costly sacrifice to save our souls, the crucifixion exhaustively portrayed in Mel Gibson\'s \"The Passion of the Christ\" is too much for some to take. On the grounds that it was not produced by the Holy Orthodox Church, but by a lay Romanist, that alone should be sufficient reason not to see it. The last portrayal of Christ that I saw on film was Jesus of Nazareth, and while that film was not overly sentimental, it was realistic enough and reverent enough, ISTM, not to be very objectionable. I wonder what the Orthodox hierarchy think of this film, \"JESUS OF NAZARETH\"? The only fault I could find with the film is it has the baptism of Christ by Blessed John the Forerunner and Baptist pouring water over the actor who portrayed Christ, instead of a baptism by full immersion down into the water, as the Gospel says. That detail was inaccurate historically in the film, otherwise an excellent drama, it seems to me (ISTM). God save us and bring us peace and joy and salvation, now, in the coming year 2008 AD, and for all ways. God grant you all many years. God save us. Save us all. Always, Scott in PA

Pullman... I\'ll be honest: His Dark Materials was one of my favorite fantasty trilogies, far more interesting and also more literary than Harry Potter. I\'ve read them a few times, mostly when I was already an agnostic/secularist. It didn\'t strengthen that view, to be honest; I wasn\'t raised in a particularly Christian household and our few ventures to the local Congregationalist church didn\'t provide much of a spiritual backdrop, so I blaim that more than Pullman. I can see why people wouldn\'t want their kids to read this in worry that the child might run around saying Lord Asriel is going off to overthrow an oppressive angel (by the way, it\'s not \"killing God;\" it\'s more of killing an angel who, alas, happens to be named \"Adonai\" (eek!); basically it\'s \"killing God\" in a sense, but there is some implication that there\'s still \"something out there\"). Then again, from our perspective, that\'s about the same thing. I\'ve heard some interesting perspectives on the role of God in Pullman\'s books, actually. Essentially, if you\'re going to read Pullman, I would suggest it more so for adults who would actually understand the symbolism (and hence be able to place up more of a guard). Most of the references (e.g. the relation to dust as a physical representation of original/ancestral sin; hence, when the antagonist in Northern Lights says something about how dust \"settles\" only after small children \"grow up\" -- which is signified by the settling of the daemons) are far more Catholic than anything, namely, at least in the case of dust, more Scholastic. If anything, Pullman\'s rabid anti-Catholicism should be more of a worry than his anti-Christian sentiments; the first one, after all, is the most prominent in the book AND the movie. I saw the movie a few days ago, and, interestingly enough, his aggression had been dumbened down a lot. I suspect that\'s going to be considered for dangerous for kids, and perhaps rightfully so. Should we protest it? I honestly don\'t thinks so; there are better things to worry about, and, alas, Pullman does have the right to freedom of speech. Again, I would say it\'s more appropriate for adults than kids on more than one level (for instance, the books contain numerous references to quantum physics, specifically multiverse theories, which, to be honest, rocked my socks when I was fourteen). Anyway, for anyone who\'s interested, there was a good program by Clark Carlton on the release of the movie.

I have read the Golden Compass Trilogy, up to the third book when I stopped about halfway through. Let me be plain. The books were extremely well written, very imaginative, and captivating. The characters were dynamic, interesting, and well thought out. I am surprised I read as far as I did, the only thing that kept me going was that they were recommended by a fellow Orthodox Christian. Let me state this plainly. The books explicitly named God and launched an assault on Him, reducing Him to a selfish and power hungry creature that manipulated people and their souls for His benefit. One part of the third book involves the characters releasing the dead from hell, where everyone went. There was no heaven. Another scene involves a St. Michael figure trying to kill the children. These books are blasphemous. I would not watch the movie. It is tempting to say, \\"but the books are so well written...\\" but I think that is part of the devil\'s cunning. They are garbage. Having said that, I definitely appreciated Harry Potter as a series books that are entirely appropriate to read as a neat adventure, and I ignore the completely useless and pointless \\"revelation\\" by the confused author. Pretty pathetic stunt, really.