[ssupermegatone]

I know I am a little late to chime in here, but I just saw the movie. I am currently studying in Lebanon so watching movies and general conncectedness with the world are not big for me right now. But, after watching the movie, I was kind of undecided if it was neccesarily anti-God, although the possibilty was definatly left open, I figured it would be decided in the next movie. But, it is worth noting that in one of the seens, which occurs on my copy at 55 minutes into the film, there is a building with an iconastasis on the front. And I mean, with out a doubt this is an iconastasis. But, after reading all these posts, I guess everything makes sense. ANd definatly, I can now see how the movie is filled with anti-Christian imagery. By the way, Narnia was much more entertaining.

[Seiblybiozy]

From what I have heard since I have no intention of watching this fiasco is the first movie was watered down in the hopes of getting people to watch it and say "that was not so bad, part 2 might be ok to watch too" only hearing what the books are about, part 2 and 3 will be nothing more than the death of God and all the negativity to make this happen.

For those of us who get "confused" easily, knowing where the ambush is is the first step in avoiding getting ambushed.

Paul

[Elitiachirl]

To the Servants of Christ in this forum:

I read hundreds of Sci-Fi books in my youth and love watching good SFX. I also watch movies like "Harry Potter", "Lord of the Rings" and "Narnia." I then warn parents before they take their kids to see them.

"The Golden Compass" opens with words to the effect: "There are many worlds. In some worlds the soul lives inside a person, like in your world. In other worlds, the soul walks beside the person, like in mine. This soul is called a demon and it takes the form of an animal spirit; a familiar." Note: Animal spirits called familiars are traditionally witches' constant companions and helpers.

Later in the movie you can learn that children's demons change form into a variety of animals frequently but adult's demons have become stable and have chosen the form they will always have thereafter. The children can and do play with their demons when there is no one else to play with. This reminds me of "imaginary friends' that some children invent for company. I imagine that after seeing the movie some children will call their imaginary friends demons. The demons might even become the real friends-by-substitution of children by this means.

The evil people in the movie were always trying to take the demons away from the children, but the good people tried to keep them together. That's of course opposite to the truth.

At the pole (north or south I remember not) there were some evil warriors called Samoyeds, a Russian name for a breed of dog. It means, 'eat themselves' because these dogs will eat the remains of their own kind for survival.

The Samoyeds in human form in the movie were speaking Russian and were evil because they tried to separate the demons from the children. They were dressed completely in black, like Orhodox monks and nuns.

When a child was separated from his/her demon, he/she became weak and ill. If the demon were to be killed, I was led to understand that the child would also die.

The movie ended with a great preparation for war. The ending seems to be the beginning of a sequel.

I warned parents against Harry Potter because it shows witchcraft and sorcery to be fun and desirable activities for children. All forms of witchcraft and sorcery rely on demonic assistance to carry out their magic, even so called "white" witchcraft.

In Christ, Victor

[Obenuearema]

I know I am a little late to chime in here, but I just saw the movie. I am currently studying in Lebanon so watching movies and general conncectedness with the world are not big for me right now. But, after watching the movie, I was kind of undecided if it was neccesarily anti-God, although the possibilty was definatly left open, I figured it would be decided in the next movie. But, it is worth noting that in one of the seens, which occurs on my copy at 55 minutes into the film, there is a building with an iconastasis on the front. And I mean, with out a doubt this is an iconastasis. But, after reading all these posts, I guess everything makes sense. ANd definatly, I can now see how the movie is filled with anti-Christian imagery. By the way, Narnia was much more entertaining.

I was totally bummed by the iconastasis there! Eh, at least in my opinion, it's mostly anti-Catholic, but the iconastasis made me want to cry.

[xpllmr]

I watched the movie, and frankly found little objectionable in it. It's certainly no worse than Narnia, which by C.S. Lewis's own admission was a deeply flawed allegory of Christianity, inasmuch as it was not Trinitarian (lacking as it does an analogue to the Holy Spirit). I think that many of us in this discussion are projecting our knowledge of the novels, which are certainly much less benign and more Deistic, onto the movie, which presented little more than a vaguely Calvinistic world-spanning theocracy backed by soldiers in the garb of 1930s Spanish army troops and Tartars straight out of Michael Strogoff.