"My Books Are About Killing God"-Snopes Confirms Golden Compass Emails

Read it.

Yikes.

Cheers!

The finale involves rebelling against and killing God and then two teens having sex in a certain place so that the universe can go on without God. I threw them away.

OMG, that sounds like an atrociously bad book. This movie deserves to go into the dustbin of history.

Here’s where I have a problem with this:

You are saying that indoctrination is a good thing if the doctrine is truth, but what you mean is if the doctrine is what YOU believe to be true. And that specific mindset is the definitive source of both aggressive, intrusive “evangelism”, and of relgious intolerance.

The truth, as comprehended or expressed by any living being, is by necessity subjective; as it relies on the interpretation of the being comprehending or expressing it.

We could, potentially, stand side by side under the same sky, and you say that the sky is blue and I say that the sky is green. Perhaps my brain interprets what you see as being blue as being green, in which case, both statements are true, subjective to the way in which our minds interpret the impulses from our eyes.

Yet while, in that scenario, both of our statements are true in our own subjective state, neither observation is true to the other party. What IS true to both of us, regardless of how our brains interpret colors, is that the sky IS. (I am that I am.)

I can assure you that my beliefs, while completely true within my own subjective sphere, are VASTLY different from your beliefs, which are likely completely true within your subjective sphere.

I can also assure you that you would in no way consider it a good thing if I were to try to force upon you the doctrine of MY truth.

What, exactly, did you experience when you were dabbling in the occult?

While I’ve never seen a horoscope that I considered much of anything more than pure speculation, I do find that astrology in and of itself offers considerable insight into one’s strengths and weaknesses.

Tarot cards are nothing more than a form of divination. As with any form of divination, or with any “psychic” pursuits, there is a certain danger, but that danger lies in ignorance and ill preparation, not the activities themselves.

The doors of which you spoke of closing are, in my opinion, the very doors of spiritual attunement, the gateway through which a spiritual connection may be established. It is necessary to open them in order to truly commune on a spiritual level with the divine, but the divine is not the only thing out there. The danger, therefore, lies not in opening the gateway, but in failing to control what connections are allowed through it, which is an ability dependant upon one’s spiritual development and state.

In the Hindu faith, the doors through which clairvoyance is possible are defined as the third eye chakra, above which is the crown chakra, through which communion with the divine is established. A person with an open third eye might well be able to “see” the state of another person’s chakras in their aura. (A man with a ring of fire about his brow...)

The danger of the third eye is that what you see, and how you interpret it, is apt to be effected by the status of the lower chakras. If you open the third eye, but have not yet reached the stage in your spiritual development where you have mastered the stomach chakra, which deals with fear and anger, those emotions are apt to influence the focus of the third eye, as well as the interpretation of what is “seen”. Again, constructive or destructive, depending upon your understanding, preparation, and control.

I experienced apparitions, physical attacks and strange phenomenon. Thinking you can control what you let in......is nothing but self-deception IMHO. I only got rid of the junk after finding out Who really is in control.

Anyhoo... I've learned alot about spiritual warfare in the past 20+ years... due to and because of my experiences.

Isn’t Nicole Kidman a Catholic?

Well she was married to the Scientologist Tom Cruise for years. She now says that she was 'raised catholic' which in my experience means that she is not currently a faithful Catholic.

"Refusing to see it isn't so much about shaky faith as it is not wanting to put dollars into Pullman's pocket."

That's right, but there's more to it than that. Hollywood doesn't want to make movies like Passion of the Christ, LOTR and Narnia, but has to now that they've been shown to be so profitable. The studios want Golden Compass to succeed so that they can rake in the box office without having to promote those icky Christian values they despise so much.

Prediction: If Golden Compass makes more than, say, 75% of the money The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe did, then the second and third Pullman movies will be released before the third Narnia movie, and the later Narnia movies won't be made at all. Anyone who cares about the Narnia films must not give one thin dime to Golden Compass.

She stole George Carlin’s line: “I was raised a Catholic - until I reached the age of reason.”

I understand your perspective; it would be correct if the doctrine I believe to be true had no objective foundation. I understand that you may not see the foundation, or may see it but not recognize it as such, but it does exist, and it is not simply my own private mental construct, but my lifelong, personal vetting of the collective, subjective observations of literally millions of others who have previously asserted what is true, which I have verified as true by my own objective analysis of their assertions, and my own subjective observations; my own experiences. Our difference of perspectives is simply an expression of the universal difficulty encountered in human attempts to agree upon definitive assertions about a subject that is observable only within a narrow set of parameters.

While I agree entirely as to how you and I might disagree as to the exact hue of the sky, I note that our disparity of subjective perception does not support a conclusion that the actual hue of the sky cannot be determined with a high degree of objectivity. Objective truth can be determined through analysis of commonalities in the subjective experiences of numerous individuals.

Our two experiences of the color of the sky disagree, and we have no cause to assign greater weight to either, but poll ten thousand, and see how the situation changes. If 9,950 people say the sky is blue, and 50 say it’s green, then you and I have a far greater base of subjective data against which to weigh our own, individual perceptions. Having that data set as a reference, we could quickly come to the conclusion that I am experiencing what most everyone else experiences, and that you ought to see an ophthalmologist. Furthermore, while the perceptions of each of the ten thousand individuals is subjective, the collection of their assertions as to the color of the sky is not; it is a data set — an object — that can be objectively analyzed. Yes, there is a small possibility — two-hundred-to-one against, given this hypothetical — that the 9,950 could be misperceiving the color of the sky, but ongoing input from additional observers would continue to be added to the data set, and test results from your ophthalmologist would be factored in, all of which would influence our trust — or lack of it — in the perceptions of those asserting, “The sky is green.”

At issue here, though, is that our subjective experiences of God — what we each assert to be “the truth” about Him — are not very much like our observations of the color of the sky. They are more like observations of the 3D images in those posters that enjoyed a burst of popularity a few years ago. The posters are multicolor 2D images processed by computer in such a way that they contain a 3D image that can be observed only when you look at them a certain way. When those images first appeared for sale in bookstores a few years back I would go to my local bookstore, and find people standing — sometimes for a half hour or more — staring at the posters, trying without success to resolve the 3D images. Some could look and be able to see the images in a few moments, but others would squint, stare, cross their eyes, change their viewing angle, and eventually go away frustrated in the attempt, having seen nothing but a flat, 2D color poster.

The makers of these posters include specific instructions for viewing them, and the 3D effect does not become apparent unless those instructions are followed. Those who invoke the personal discipline to follow the instructions are rewarded for their patience, if they persevere as, after a few moments, the 3D image suddenly jumps out at them. Then, having had that initial success, they can move on to look at other similarly produced posters, and reliably resolve the hidden 3D images in a few seconds. Furthermore, they can look at any poster, and reliably discern whether there is a 3D image hidden there, or not.

Two aspects of this interest me: first, that the hopeful observer needs to decide that it “is true” that the 3D image exists — that he has an established reason for his hope — prior to attempting to see it; second, that the hopeful observer needs follow specific instructions — to purposefully meet defined terms — before the image will resolve. Those who do that find success with a high degree of reliability; those who try to force it don’t, even if they initially believe that there really IS a 3D image to be seen. They do just about everything BUT follow the instructions, and they never get the 3D image to appear; they never submit to the terms of observation laid down by the producers of the poster. They try to impose their own methods, to force the image to appear to them on their own terms, or they expect it to just pop out at the first glance, and they fail.

That is completely like God: You don’t discover the truth about Him on your terms; He reveals it to you on His terms.

And we, as the observers, have requirements to meet; as do those attempting to resolve the 3D images in those posters. Like them, we must first decide that it “is true” that there is something there to be observed. This is the great “leap of faith” I referenced before. Wholly unlike observers of the color of the sky — who can all see that it “is true” that there IS a sky to observe, which must be of some discernible, describable color — we who would observe God, must assert that it “is true” that God is observable (i.e. He exists), as a precondition of success in our observations, and that He will reward our sincere seeking with success. As with the observers of the posters, we who would observe God must submit to these predefined terms apart from which our attempted observations will fail. One does not, by exertion and activity, force the experience of God; one accepts that He will reveal Himself to those who, by their persistent and sincere seeking demonstrate commitment to the truth of His existence, and their determination that, in light of that truth, they will persistently seek until they find Him.

Now, at this juncture, theologians will jump in with comments regarding election, and free will, but I will set them all aside as irrelevant to us as seekers of God for these reasons:
IF the doctrine of election is true, if we have no free will in the matter, the ONLY way that we may really KNOW that we are NOT among “the elect” is to pretend we are agents with free will, sincerely seek God until death, and pass out of this life having had no success in finding Him.
IF, OTOH, the doctrine of election is not true, and we DO have free will in the matter, then the ONLY reasonable course of action is to exercise that free will, and sincerely seek God, confident that we will find Him ere we breathe our last.

Either way, sincere seekers make a prior commitment to the possibility that they may expend their whole lives seeking, confident that He is yet there to be found, and this commitment becomes the principle manifestation of the sincerity with which they seek. So, whether finding God is by election, or by free will becomes, practically speaking, six of one, or a half-dozen of the other. Therefore I say, these doctrines, and the debate about them, are functionally irrelevant to those who seek.

There is a sufficiently great body of subjective experience asserting the existence of a God Who can be known that a life spent seeking Him cannot be considered wasted, that an expectation of success in seeking Him has a foundation that is entirely reasonable, and that the only ultimate failure in life consists in not having made the commitment to sincerely seek God; first believing that He is, and second believing that He will be found.

It would be easy, I suppose, to object saying that all I have done is to reiterate and shore up my own subjective experience; that I have not communicated "the truth", only "my truth", however that objection does not bear upon whether my perceptions and experience are accurate reflections of what is real, only that they amount to another subjective data point in a vast collection of similar subjective data points.

I grant you this: until one finds God, greater, and smaller collectives of variant subjective experiences are all there seem to be. It appears that it is up to each of us to decide where we stake our own claim, and it becomes our task to review the available positions, and evaluate what short and long range potential lies inherent in each. Everything really DOES seem to be a mere matter of subjective observation.

Once you find God, however, you WILL KNOW that NOTHING could possibly be further from the Truth. So I enjoin you to set your mind and heart to FIND HIM; if it takes the rest of your life, and is the last thing you do. The reward surpasses the price.

FIND HIM!

I fear that perhaps you are not quite correctly understanding what I am trying to say. I do see the foundation, and I have found "Him". I wouldn't say that I found Him on my terms, but I would say that I found him IN my terms, which is to say that I commune with the divine on the levels and in the ways that resonate most deeply within me, though I make no assertion that what those levels and ways were of my decision.

As for the discussion of the subjective description of the color of the sky, your explanation of objective foundation misses my point. My point is that a majority of people interpreting what I see as green as being blue does not mean that it is not green TO ME.

Now as this analogy relates to the divine, I am not talking about the existence of God. I acknowledge the existence of God, and seek not to find Him, but rather to maintain a consistent and ongoing connection with Him.

That is spirituality.

What I am talking about is the attempt to specify the difinitive path TO, and the will OF God as an absolute truth.

That is organized religion, and it is precisely, the willingness to believe that because one viewpoint of the path to and will of God is held by so many that all others must be wrong, that is the very source of religious intolerance. In actuality, they are not necessarily wrong, they are merely nessecarily different.

The problem with that approach is that the path to and will of God may be the same for many people, and different for others. God may manifest Himself to people in many different ways, and ask different things of them. And it is not the path that matters, but rather the destination, and in what condition you arrive.

You said that you do not find the truth about God on your own terms, but rather that he reveals it to you on His. I would disagree with that. I believe that it is our purpose to find his Truth on our own terms, though those terms need be in harmony with His will. I also believe that He may reveal His truth to us, regardless of whether or not we have previously accepted His terms.

When I spoke earlier of the chakras, and controlling what connections you allowed through the third eye, this is what I was talking about. The difference between placing a call and receiving one. Actively seeking God.

This is also why I sometimes have a problem with doctrine. The doctrine of the Christian church tells us that psychic endeavors are evil, and indeed some things that you might endeavor to do psychicly are, and of course there are dangers involved in not excercising control and caution even when undertaking benevolent pursuits.

But how else are you to communicate with God? With as many people as there are who claim to have heard the voice of God, I would imagine that if this were not happening on an extra-sensory-perception level to which not everyone is attuned, if it were at all measureable in the audible spectrum, that we all would indeed know His existence.

And should I simply accept what some group of people tell me is the truth of God and what His will for me is, or should I ask for myself, and strive to be able to comprehend the answer?

The doctrine of the Christian church also tells us that "magic" is evil. But what is magic? By my description, it is the application of personal, divine, and/or elemental energy to the manifestation of a specific goal.

If that goal is to manipulate or harm another person, then it is evil. If it is to protect or heal a loved one, or enhance your awareness of your divine purpose, however, you might well call it prayer. What seperates "magic" from prayer is the realization that the desired manifestation may occur even without assistance from God, provided He does not intervene to prevent it.

With that awareness, and the awareness that the only components necessary to potentially result in manifestation are energy and intent, come the realization of the responsibility for our thoughts, as they are directly infused with our energy.

While I do not advocate using "magic", either intentionally or by lack of mental and emotional control, in the pursuit of anything not in keeping with God's will, I do see and frequently make use of the benefit of incorporating the cleansing and renewing attributes of water (baptism), or the darkness-banishing and transforative attributes of fire and air (altar candles/incense), in my rituals/spells.

So some activities that are part of my spiritual practice, some might call "magic" or "witchcraft", and on the basis of their doctrine label as evil. I might be "summoning the elements" and "casting spells". But in reality, I'm simply bothering to will myself to be spiritually cleansed while I'm taking a bath, or burning a candle to heal a friend, and being aware of the contributions the elements involved can potentially make to the endeavor.

The point here is that "magic", divination, and other psychic endeavors are merely activities that may be used as tools. It is the intent with which the tools are used, not the tools themselves, which possess the capacity for evil.

Now if using "magic" is how you define "witchcraft", then fine, I'm a witch, but perhaps this will help some people brandishing the "protect our children from witchcraft" sword to realize that if "magic" is what scares you about "witchcraft", your fears are misplaced.

If you pray, you already practice magic, although perhaps not using all available sources of power (the elements). And if you pray without the realization that your prayers may be answered whether God answers them or not, you practice magic irresponsibly and recklessly.