His Dark Materials

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

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?

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

though one might argue around just how inaccurate it was

Very, very inaccurate. Unless you're just trying to describe the Spanish Inquisition .

Originally Posted by Bran

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Bran

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.

Originally Posted by Bran

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.

Originally Posted by Bran

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 .

Originally Posted by Bran

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.

Originally Posted by Bran

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.

Originally Posted by Bran

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 ) posts . I really do enjoy the discussion.

[Bran]

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]

Originally Posted by Bran

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.

I'm sorry about that. I hate it when that happens.

[Bran]

"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.

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 .

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 ) posts . I really do enjoy the discussion.

[Bran]

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]

Originally Posted by Bran

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.

Originally Posted by Bran

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.

Originally Posted by Bran

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).

Originally Posted by Bran

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 .

Originally Posted by Bran

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.

Originally Posted by Bran

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.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It continued many times (though not always) to support the needy and place beautiful moral doctrines in the hearts and minds of men.

Originally Posted by Bran

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.

Originally Posted by Lief and then Bran

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.

Originally Posted by Bran

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."

Originally Posted by Bran

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.

Originally Posted by Bran

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.

I wonder why stupid BBC hasn't picked up on that one yet.

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?

Originally Posted by Bran

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Bran

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.

Well, this is the wrong thread for discussing "Kingdom of Heaven". I look forward to your responses to the rest of what I was saying .

[Embladyne]

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]

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

[jellyfishannah]

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]

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]

Well, I'm jealous.

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

I guarantee it will surprise you.