His Dark Materials

who kills god? It certainly isn't lyra and will. It's not her father and mother (names escape recall).In fact, it's god's second in command who is responsible for the death of god. You know, keeping him holed up in a crystal as a weak pathetic man. ANd holed up so long that if he were to get out he'd die? And then not protecting the guy well enough.I would think the big thing the church might object to would be the whole apsect of the revolt against god's second in command being a good thing. So much for the concept of hell.

Tolkein also built in a lot of chance into his books. Roughly half the stuff that happens, and some of the most important things even, are by chance.It is a chance encounter that gives Gollum the ring. It is a chance encounter that Bilbo finds the ring in the dark. It is a chance event that Gollum slips. Remember? Yeah, he falls of the cliff edge because he is dancing with joy at getting the ring back.The point? So much can ride on so few and so happenstance things and events. It all hangs in the balance.

Unless you're a true sceptic.Tell me, just what in HSD promotes atheism? What in there is a guide to atheism? I read it as an attack against fundamentalism and barbarity.

thank you for not answering my question. you gave me what the author thought he is doing.What specifically in HDM promotes atheism?You do realize that attacking one position is not the same as supporting a different position, right? Which is why we tell creos that they have to support ID/creo/YEC/lunacy with more than attacks on evolution, because they aren't actually supporting their claim.

uh-huh. You haven't read the books. So then you can't really say what in HDM promotes atheism, can you? Then why did you say it did?And again, attacking one position does not support a different position, in and of itself. And that, so far, is all you've quoted about Pullman, that he is discrediting Christianity.Again, there is a difference betweeing discrediting/attacking a position and supporting a different position. Doing the first does not accomplish the latter. And doing the latter doesn't necessarily do the first.

Well, no they don't. In fact, you recently said that the authority was the only god they had in the book. So either there is a god in that book, or there isn't, and you've said both. Well, again, they don't. They kill the second in command who has taken over god's role. God is this little guy locked up in a crystal. And when the crystal is broken, he floats away and disapears. And the angels in rebellion certainly don't think of him as god, but an imposter. And if god was able to be locked up and put away, he certainly doesn't seem like the god spoken of who is all powerful and all knowing. The only thing killed in this book is a specific idea of god, a largely fundamentalist idea of god, not the complete idea of god.How long ago did you read this, anyway? This isn't particularly true, either. I think it would be a little much to say that jar is the same as ray, except ray says things with courage. There's a clear difference between moderates and fundies of any stripe. And that is largely the fanaticism and the extreme rhetoric. You're not pegging me as a theist, are you?

the topic is also about a book--in fact, originally about a book. The OP mentions nothing about the movie, and was written well before the movie came out (more than four years ago).

Does the fact I'm atheist escape you somehow? No. We're better off without the Authority, the guy who's second in command and has the real power in heaven. metatron, I think his name is. That is who they are rebelling against, not the guy in prison. That is the guy they are actively trying to get rid of, not the guy in the prison. In fact, if I recall the story correctly, Will and Lyra basically run across the guy in the crystal by accident. Further, they open the cyrstal to ease the guy's suffering, which is quite different from trying to get rid of him. Not exactly a great death for god. All that was killed was an ineffectual, suffering old man (by Lyra and Will. Coulter and Ariel kill a different being, who is definitely not god). I didn't leave it unsaid. What do you think I mean by the complete idea of god? The complete idea would be the collection of every belief about god that exists. From every single sect of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, all the quite different (from each other) eastern religions, the pagan gods, etc. All Pullman has done is say that this one type of god is false, he has yet to touch upon the rest. And in interviews (as GDR was so kind to provide), Pullman says he attacking Christianity, not theism in general. Could this perhaps be why he chooses what looks to be the Roman Catholic Church and then infuses it with a great fundamentalist streak? That's not my argument at all. My argument was that if the god in HDM (not metatron, but the guy who's in the crystal) is supposed to be all-powerful and whatnot, and it's clear he isn't, then that god clearly isn't god. Because god, by definition, must have those qualities. What's interesting is that metatron doesn't take the title of god, but rules in god's name. Further, he can't be the christian god (as traditionally defined) because he was once human (I forget which), and unlike jesus, didn't come from god. So that knocks out the whole eternal part of god.So I fail to see where any character is killing any god to be rid of him. That is, I only see people attacking a demagogue who has hijacked religion.The rest of your post is essentially wrong. In that, I can sum it up to "I'm right, you're wrong, that's all there is to it". All you've done is say that Jar and ray are the same in their beliefs. Well, that is quite clearly bunk. How do the two have the same religion? Because they're both christian (or at least, claim to be)? Or does the difference between the two in regards to science and how to look at the world mean something? Does Jar's religion support lying for Jesus? Does ray's? Does one support looking objectively at the evidence? Or does one support twisting everything to fit the bible? I think these are important differences between their two religions. Jar has the courage to follow his religion to it's logical conclusion. Further, he is actively campaigning against the fundies on the board (something you claim doesn't happen by co-religionists). Is RAZD, a deist, the same as ray? After all, both believe in god. There is a fundamental difference in there beliefs. And jar definitely takes his beliefs seriously.What I find really funny is that you are mistaking me for a moderate theist (at all appearances, at any rate, when you claim I use the god-as-cypher argument to protect my idea of god), and this is essentially what ray says about jar, that jar is actually an atheist.In less words, I find it funny that the fundies on both sides mistake people on their side who are less extreme for being on the opposite side.

If there is, you're a prime example of it. And yet Protestants and Catholics have warred against each other (famously in the thirty years war). They have a long history of enmity. Would you call the eastern orthodox church the same religion and the roman catholic or the thousands of protestant branches? I wouldn't. Especially when you start talking about unitarians. You're making an argument based off of a vast generalization, trying to fit more than a billion people into the same little box. It doesn't work. That really has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with your faulty analysis. There are clear differences in the two's religion. If believing in god is enough for you to classify them as being in the same religion, then Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and numerous other religions are all just the same. And that is to ignore the cultural and theological differences that separate them. And now you've changed the goal posts. You first said that moderates weren't campaigning against their fundamentalist counterpoints. Now you are saying they aren't being effective in it.I think Jar and others of his ilk are far more honest christians than people like ray. I'm just not certain you accept that fact that a line can be walked between the two while being honest. Well, since I haven't been arguing this, I cannot see why you'd bring it up. Of course, but Pullman was attacking a specific idea of god, one that most christians seem to have. How would destroying the all powerful god affect the possibility of of the numerous creators in the native american mythos, who are not claimed to be allpowerful? All he's said is you could be wrong about this one type of god. No, I don't. I just don't think he argued against more than one type of god, which you seemed to disagree with. Actually, I did. You just can't seem to read. Are you so sure?

I'm not. Look at any number of Jar's posts. Especially in the current thread on fulfilled prophecy. Are all atheists the same? That's essentially what you're claiming, except with theists. Again, that's purposefully ignoring all the differences in order to prove your point that ray and jar are the same, when clearly, they aren't. Just as you and I, atheists, are not the same. I'm not saying that they don't have common beliefs, I'm saying that there's enough of a difference between the groups to put them on different sides. Do you really want to pull a Huntington and say all of Africa is one civilization? Because that is total bullshit, and that is what you're doing.Another point--what of Deism? Is that the same as the Abrahamic religions to you? You know, because they belief in god?Another problem with your example--different sects within Christianity have different views on homosexuality. Ever hear of the split that's happening in the Anglican/Episcopalian Church? The only single thing these religions agree on is that god exists, but then each and every single one has a different idea, and each sect within the religions have different ideas from the rest. Your statements are to the effect that 1,000 plus ideas of God = one idea of god, which is some pretty funny math. Didn't realize god was a scale issue.On to your quoted passage. It also seems like all one has to do is not be against Christ, which means that those neutral would also then be christians, by your argument. And I dare say people can be neutral about Christ. Well, given that the bible contradicts itself in the very beginning, I'm not sure what significance your statement is supposed to have. I mean, if it can contradict itself on the story of creation, that doesn't leave much hope for it not contradicting other things. Further, the bible isn't even in a single version (either through [mis]translations or the number of books within it, or both combined). So using the bible to disprove moderate christianity is kind of ridiculous. Again, maybe you can't read? I said that clearly enough. All those ideas of god add up to the complete idea of god. Sure, it makes god this unwiedly, ungainly, contradictory thing, but that's a recognization that god means something different to practically everybody. That's a dangerous statement. That's awfully close to calling evidence faith. Evidence contends that I exist, and that this is true. Doubt would say I don't exist. Perhaps you could be a little more specific?And if doubt is simply questioning the validity of something, what does it rely on? Because in order to get to the opposite conclusion, I would hope you had some evidence or faith has been used to maintain the opposite position. In which case, faith equals faith.