The Golden Compass by Philip Pullman, Christian Objections (with Responses)

Three objections that I've heard concerning Pullman's "Golden Compass" (the movie), and "His Dark Materials" trilogy:

OBJECTION #1: Catholics object to the author's use of the phrase, "The Magisterium"

OBJECTION #2: Protestants object to the way John Calvin is portrayed in the novels as being connected with "children" being "killed."

OBJECTION #3: Protestants and Catholics both object to the way "Original Sin" is portrayed as somehow being connected with adolescent sexual awakening.

OBJECTION #1: Catholics object to the author's use of the phrase, "The Magisterium" to depict the governing body on his alternate earth. According to Catholics using such a term is an affront to "The Magisterium" which is defined today as the living teaching authority of the Catholic church. So using such a term to depict the controlling forces of a totalitarian society in Pullman's fiction is a form of bigotry and prejudice.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION #1: Even the late Pope John Paul II admitted that the Catholic church had a lot to apologize for over the centuries, including a thirst for political influence, wealth, power, totalitarian-like teachings and activities. Hence the late Pope John Paul II set up a commission to tally up the church's questionable teachings and misdeeds over the centuries, though it remains doubtful that they will ever formally complete such a task. But if anyone wishes to study the question of totalitarianism and the Bible and the church fathers, then a prime example of the type of reasoning employed can be found in

De Laicis — Saint Robert Bellarmine's Treatise on Civil Government by Saint Robert Bellarmine Doctor of the Universal Church.

Just read chapters 18-22:
The Defense of Religion Pertains to the Political Magistracy
It is not Possible for Catholics to be Reconciled with Heretics
The Books of Heretics Should Be Abolished
Can Heretics Condemned by the Church Be Punished with Temporal Penalties and even with Death
The Solution of Difficulties

Bellarmine covers a host of questions any Christian might ask pertaining to how one can interpret the Bible and the church fathers and arrive at something akin to totalitarianism.

OBJECTION #2: Protestants object to the way John Calvin is portrayed in the novels as being connected with "children" being "killed."

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION #2: True, the historical John Calvin in our cosmos was not known for killing children willy nilly. And even in Pullman's fiction there is a reason or threat that the Magisterium finds compelling enough to make them conduct experiments on children that lead sometimes to their deaths--though killing the children is not the object of such experiments which are attempts to find a way to avoid people attracting "dust."

On the other hand, the historical John Calvin did teach that the disciplining of unruly children was necessary, even unto death. Some modern day Calvinists agree, even unto the death penalty for disobedient children in their mid-teens. See the materials below, beginning with verses from the O.T. that Calvin himself is known to have cited and expounded upon:

He that strikes his father or his mother shall die the death.
-Exodus 21:15

He that curses his father or his mother shall die the death.
-Exodus 21:17

If any man has a son that is stubborn and disobedient, which will not hearken unto the voice of his father, nor the voice of his mother, and they have chastened him [The Hebrew word for “chasten” means literally “chasten with blows.”], and he would not obey them, Then shall his father and his mother take him, and bring him out unto the Elders of his city, and unto the gate of the place where he dwells, And shall say unto the Elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and disobedient, and he will not obey our admonition; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. Then all the men of the city shall stone him with stones unto death: so thou shalt take away evil from among you, that all Israel may hear and fear.
-Deuteronomy 21:18-21

HOW CHILDREN WERE TREATED AT THE HEIGHT OF CALVINISM IN GENEVA

In 1563, a girl named Genon Bougy, who had insulted her mother by calling her "japa," was condemned to three days in prison on bread and water, and she had to make a public apology after worship services. In 1566, Damian Mesnier, a child from the village of Genthod, for insulting his mother by calling her "diablesse, hérège, larronne" and by throwing stones at her, was whipped in public and then hanged from the gallows with the rope passed under his arms, as a sign of the death he had deserved, but which was spared him because of his youth. Philippe Deville was beheaded in1568 for having beaten his father and step-mother. Four years later, a 16-year-old child tried to strike his mother, and was also condemned to death; but the sentence was reduced in light of his young age, and he was only banished, after being whipped in public with a rope around his neck. [SOURCE: Jean Picot [Professeur d'histoire dans la faculte des lettres de l'Academie de cette ville] Histoire de Geneve, Tome Second (Published in Geneva, i.e., A Geneve, Chez Manget et Cherbuliez, Impreimeurs-Libr. 1811) p. 264]

“GIRL” (?) BEHEADED

A child was whipped for calling his mother a thief and a she-devil (diabless). A girl was beheaded for striking her parents, to vindicate the dignity of the fifth commandment. [SOURCE: Philip Schaff [Professor of Church History in the Union Theological Seminary, New York] Modern Christianity: The Swiss Reformation = Vol. VIII of History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmanns, third edition revised, 1910) -- Schaff does not footnote the “beheading” incident, though he does provide on that page and the next a few footnotes regarding other incidents of prohibitions and their penalties in Geneva. He also lists the sources he consulted when writing his book (sources are listed at the beginning of each section). In this case, judging by nearby footnotes and by his source list for that particular section, he most likely obtained his information from either the Registers of the Council of Geneva, or, “Amedee Roget: L’eglise et l’etat a Geneve du vivant de Calvin. Etude d’histoire politico-ecclesiastique, published in Geneve, 1867 (pp. 92). Compare also his Histoire du people de Geneve depuis la reforme jusqu’a l’escalade (1536-1602), 1870-1883, 7 vols.”]

[Picot and Schaff do not agree on the gender of the beheaded child, and my first source, Dr. Henry, only mentions that it was a “child,” not specifying its gender. Picot’s History of Geneva provides the most complete information concerning the incident, including the child’s name and the date of the beheading. The archives of Geneva are vast and include not only the Registers of the Council and the Registers of the Consistory, but many other records as well (that the Calvin scholar, Robert Kingdon, lists by category in Vol. 1 of his English translation of the Registers of the Consistory). Though massive, the Genevan archives could probably be searched by focusing on the year of the beheading and the child’s name that Picot has given, and they could probably supply more information, such as the child’s age when s/he was beheaded. -- E.T.B.]

CALVIN’S TEACHING ON THE EXECUTION OF REBELLIOUS CHILDREN FROM CALVIN’S DAY TO OUR OWN

The same year that the Libertines were overthrown (1555) and pro-Calvinists ruled Geneva, Calvin preached on the execution of rebellious children in a sermon that advocated it (in order to “remove the evil from among you” as it stated in Deuteronomy). The sermon was recorded (by a secretary in shorthand) and later published and is even available today in English on the internet at a site run by Theonomist Evangelical Christians who are some of Calvin’s biggest modern day admirers. In his sermon Calvin cited verses from the Bible that taught that parents should both love and discipline their children, advice that you would normally hear in any sermon or read in a Parenting magazine today, with one crucial difference of course, the added Biblical necessity of having some disobedient, parent-dishonoring, rebellious children executed “to remove the evil from among you.”

Also during the 1550s many editions of French Bibles were printed in Geneva that contained notes based on Calvin’s teachings. In 1560 an English translation of the Bible was published in Geneva, the famous “Geneva Bible.” Like the earlier French Bibles it featured notes that reflected the teachings of Calvin and Calvinism. Each book in the Geneva Bible was preceded by an opening “argument” -- for instance the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy were preceded by “arguments” that said the laws revealed to Moses were “temporal and civil ordinances,” “necessary for a commonweal,” and to “govern” His “Church.” And a note in the Geneva Bible, concerning the command in Deuteronomy to execute rebellious children, added: “Which death was also appointed for blasphemers and idolaters: so that to disobey the parents is most horrible.”

Robert Kingdon [a modern day Calvin scholar who not only edited the Registers of the Consistory of Geneva, but also wrote a book about Adultery in Calvin’s Geneva], noted that during the early 1560s: “We find in the surviving dossiers of Genevan criminal trials a cluster of several cases of adultery punished with the death penalty in 1560 and 1561. That was when the Calvinist Reformation was at its peak... Calvin too, was at the peak of his career, with a new and definitive edition of his masterwork, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, just off the [Genevan] press.”

In 1563, Calvin’s Commentary on the Five Books of Moses was also published in Geneva and it reiterated what he had previously taught in his sermons in 1555 concerning the necessity of following God’s rules of discipline and the necessity of magistrates to obey and enforce Biblical laws, including the execution of rebellious children. It was soon after that when the harsh public disciplinary actions toward children took place. Moreover, during those same years, a string of witches were killed (not a one was banished, all executed, one right on the spot), several adulterers were executed, and a few people even committed suicide rather than face the Consistory. It was Calvinism in its most heightened state of belief and triumph.

In January of 1998 the Rev. William Einwechter composed an article titled, “Stoning Disobedient Children,” that was published in Chalcedon Report. The Reverend’s article raised some eyebrows in the world of “church and state news” since it advocated the execution of rebellious children who were “in their middle teens [15-17?] or older.” The Reverend responded to his critics in a second article. Both of his articles can be googled easily since they are posted at various websites. I emailed the Reverend, asking him why he chose the “mid-teens” as a cut off point for execution when Exodus mentions executing children twice, once for “cursing” their parents, and once for “striking” their parents, but in neither case does it specify the “age” of “executable” children. In fact in some places the Bible says God himself killed, or commanded his people to execute, infants and pregnant women. Therefore, the “age” of a child does not appear to have played a very large factor when it came to the necessity of removing “evil” from the sight of God:

Their fruit shalt Thou destroy from the earth, and their seed from among the children of men.
- Psalm 21:10

The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born... let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.
- Psalm 58:3,8

As for Israel, their glory shall fly away like a bird, and from the womb, and from the conception... Give them, O Lord: what will Thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts... they shall bear no fruit...
- Hosea 9:11-16

Every living thing on the earth was drowned [which no doubt included pregnant women and babies]... Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
- Genesis 7:23

Thus saith the LORD... Slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.
- 1 Samuel 15:3

Joshua destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD commanded.
- Joshua 10:40

The LORD delivered them before us; and we destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones.
- Deuteronomy 2:33-34

Kill every male among the little ones.
- Numbers 31:17

The wind of the LORD shall come up from the wilderness, and his spring shall become dry, and... Samaria shall become desolate... they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
- Hosea 13:15-16

With thee will I [the LORD] break in pieces the young man and the maid.
- Jeremiah 51:22

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
- Psalm 137:9

I added in my email to Rev. Einwechter that Calvinist Christians whose “fear of God” ran deep could cite scriptures like those above and argue for executing rebellious children of a far younger age than he suggested in his article. Apparently the Reverend did not wish to argue the question of “age” any further with me, since he never replied to the second email I sent him.

This subject also brings to mind the related question of the Bible’s rules for the disciplining of children:

Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.
- Proverbs 19:18 (The Hebrew word for “chasten” means literally “chasten with blows.”)

The blueness of a wound cleanses away evil: so do stripes the inward parts of the belly.
- Proverbs 20:30 (The Hebrew word translated “stripes” means “beating.”)

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beats him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shall deliver his soul from Sheol.
- Proverbs 23:13-14

As a man chasteneth his son, so the Lord thy God chasteneth thee (with blows).
- Deuteronomy 8:5

For whom the Lord loves he chasteneth, and scourges every son whom he receives.
- Hebrews 12:6 (The Greek word translated “chasteneth,” also means “beating.”)


OBJECTION #3: Protestants and Catholics both object to the way "Original Sin" is portrayed as somehow being connected with adolescent sexual awakening.

REPLY TO OBJECTION #3: In Pullman's trilogy (His Dark Materials) "dust" is a powerful force, which causes the alethiometer to operate, flows around the Aurora Borealis, passes between parallel universes, and adheres to adult humans (but not to animals and not to juveniles whose daemons have not yet settled into final form). And because it is intimately connected to the changes that take place at puberty, which in the eyes of the Church (in Lyra’s world) are a manifestation of Original Sin, it is seen by the Church and its Oblation Board as evil; therefore they want to find a way to protect humans from its actions.

“Dust is the embodiment of either Original Sin or the creative energy of humankind, which may be the same thing in Pullman's world.” (Jacobs)

“Dust is only a name for what happens when matter begins to understand itself.” (Pullman, The Subtle Knife)

In "His Dark Materials" trilogy Pullman's interpretation of the garden of Eden tale is that after eating the forbidden fruit Adam and Eve were awakened to full consciousness, curiosity, including sexual curiosity. Pullman's explanation in the story is that "dust" is drawn to humans at the point where childhood turns into early-adulthood/adolesence, and that the moment of awakening [which some Protestants might call the "age of accountability"] is a sort of replay of the awakening of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden when "their eyes were opened," and they gained "knowledge."

For instance In the Genesis story the immediate consequence of eating from the tree of "knowledge of good and evil" was their awareness of being "naked," and the first action reported after the expulsion from the garden is Adam's "knowing" Eve
(Genesis 4:1).

[Explanatory note in case someone brings up the "be fruitful and multiply" command in Genesis chapter 1 and uses it to argue that Adam and Eve had sex in Eden before they sinned, and thus sexual awakening had nothing to do with original sin. Genesis 1 which contains the "be fruitful" command is a story that contains evidence of later concerns, even ideas absorbed during the Babylonian exile, and it is more fully monotheistic as well, a later development in Israelite religion. Thus Genesis 1 is a later tale, so whatever it may say about God commanding the first man and woman to "be fruitful and multiply" that appears to be a later embellishment. While the earlier creation story found in Genesis 2-4 has God walking naked in the garden with Adam and Eve who are like children running around naked and doing some gardening--though the garden watered itself it was said from rising mists--and then the couple ate of the forbidden fruit (attaining knowledge--a more adult and mature view of things for the first time) and their eyes were opened and they hide their nakedness in shame and begat children after leaving the garden. Of course even in the later tale of the creation of man and women in which they are commanded to "be fruitful" the metaphor of "fruit" is employed and harkens back to ancient Near Eastern sexual metaphors, as pointed out by Dr. Ronald A. Veenker (Post-doctoral Fellow, Hebrew Union College-Jewish lnstitute of Religion, Rabbinic Literature (Tannaitic Midrash), Cantillation of Torah, Sumerian Grammar and Syntax, 1977), in his paper presented at The Society of Biblical Literature in 1993, Forbidden Fruit: Ancient Near Eastern Sexual Metaphors.

As for verses in the Bible and teachings of theologians and monks in the early church regarding celibacy as an extremely important means for attaining holiness, pleasing God and being in His presence, below are examples. Keep in mind while reading these examples that just because the author of the Song of Songs praised “well favored” women with “breasts like towers,” is no reason to think “the Lord” finds “favor” with them. He’s into virginity--into it deeper than any Protestant ever imagined. Take the following heavenly scene:

I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: And they sung as it were a new song before the throne [of the Lord]...and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they that were not defiled with women; for they are virgins.
-Revelation 14: 2-4

Why is it important that the 144,000 male harpists not be “defiled” with women? Likewise, why did Moses feel it was important for Israelite men to “come not at their wives” before “meeting the Lord?” (Exodus 19:15,17) What exactly is so bad about having a little nookie before meeting the Lord?

And why did Paul teach: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman [sexually]… Are you loosed from a wife? seek not a wife… The time is short: it remains that they that have wives be as though they had none.” (1 Cor. 7) And finally, why did Jesus say, “Some have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven?” (Mat. 19:12) What’s the lesson behind all this?

There appears to have been some ancient taboo about a woman “spiritually defiling” a man by having sex with him. (I wonder if a single Protestant Christian still believes this or worries about any such biblical lessons? Do they “come not at their wives” before traveling to the annual Southern Baptist Convention? I doubt it.)

FURTHER TEACHINGS FROM PAUL AND OTHER EARLY THEOLOGIANS AND MONKS

It is good for a man not to touch a woman [sexually]… For I would that all men were even as I myself… I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I… But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn… I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be… Are you loosed from a wife? seek not a wife… The time is short: it remains that they that have wives be as though they had none… He that is unmarried cares for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married cares for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married cares for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your own profit… that you may attend upon the Lord without distraction.
-1 Corinthians 7:1,7,8-9,26-27,29,32-35

In the first times, it was the duty to use marriage… chiefly for the propagation of the human race. But now, in order to enter upon holy and pure fellowship… they who wish to contract marriage for the sake of children, are to be admonished, that they use rather the larger good of continence. But I am aware of some that murmur, “What if all men should abstain from all sexual intercourse, whence will the human race exist?” Would that all would… Much more speedily would the City of God be filled, and the end of the world hastened. For what else does the Apostle Paul exhort to, when he says, “I would that all were as myself;” or in that passage, “But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remains that both they who have wives, be as though not having: and they who weep, as though not weeping: and they who rejoice, as though not rejoicing: and they who buy, as though not buying: and they who use this world as though they use it not. For the form of this world is passing away.” (1 Cor. 7:7-8, 29-31) [SOURCE: Saint Augustine (c. 354-430), On the Good of Marriage, Sections 9-10]

In Eden, it would have been possible to beget offspring without foul lust. The sexual organs would have been stimulated into necessary activity by will-power alone, just as the will controls other organs. Then, without being goaded on by the allurement of passion, the husband could have relaxed upon his wife's breasts with complete peace of mind and bodily tranquility, that part of his body not activated by tumultuous passion, but brought into service by the deliberate use of power when the need arose, the seed dispatched into the womb with no loss of his wife's virginity. So, the two sexes could have come together for impregnation and conception by an act of will, rather than by lustful cravings. [SOURCE: Saint Augustine, The City of God, Book14, Chapter 26]

Nothing so casts down the manly mind from its height as the fondling of women and those bodily contacts that belong to the married state. [SOURCE: Augustine, De Trinitate]

I am aware that some have laid it down that virgins of Christ must not bathe with eunuchs or married women, because the former still have the minds of men and the latter may present the ugly spectacle of swollen [pregnant] bellies. For my part I say that mature girls must not bathe at all, because they ought to blush to see themselves naked.
- Saint Jerome (c. 342-420)

Saint Jerome conquered his carnal visions of dancing maidens by throwing himself in tears before a crucifix, beating his breast with a stone, and fleeing into the desert.
- John Dollison, Pope-Pourri

Saint Bernard of Clairvaux threw himself into half-frozen ponds to free himself from sexual temptation. He also wrote lengthy commentaries on the Bible’s Song of Songs (also called “The Song of Solomon”) “to prove it was not about sex.”

Edward T. Babinski 12/5/2007

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi Ed,

Great evaluation as usual! A few things leap out at me to comment on.

First, I think the truth, freedom, and love of Christ can be pictured like concentric circles spreading out after the initial impact. At least potentially, freedom of slaves, equality for women, scientific and social progress, etc., were put in motion by Christ. Sadly, there have also been abuses and perversions of religion, and otherwise good influences are thwarted. But we also find that where and when Christ's influence has been most received, progress is made.

As the Yale church historian Kenneth Scott Latourette says,

"The most thought-provoking set of facts in human history is that in spite of its seemingly absurdly inauspicious start, within five centuries Christianity won the professed allegiance of the overwhelming majority of the Greco-Roman world, that it survived the demise of that world, and that within nineteen centuries . . . it penetrated to practically every corner of the inhabited globe and became a moulding force in every great cultural area of mankind".

Secondly, as sexual scruples have waxed and waned, various interpretations have been imposed on the Bible. Medieval writers who blushed at the very human sexuality of Song of Solomon imposed a "Christ and the church" metaphor on it. The rabbis however always accepted the erotic nature of the book and took "fruitful" in Genesis to include sexuality (Dallas Theological Seminary commentary on 1 Corinthians).

Thirdly, as to the sexual restrictions of the ancient theocracy in the Exodus passage,
B. Jacob (Exodus, p. 537) notes that as the people were to approach him they were not to lose themselves in earthly love. Such separations prepared the people for meeting God. Sinai was like a bride, forbidden to anyone else. Abstinence was the spiritual preparation for coming into the presence of the Holy One.

Finally, "it is good for a man not to touch a woman" is most probably a slogan of the Corinthians and not Paul. Paul lists and comments on several Corinthian slogans in his first letter, such as: "all things are lawful for me", "food for the stomach and the stomach for food", "every sin a person commits is outside the body", "it is good for a man not to touch a woman". Paul corrected and expounded each phrase. In fact, what he said was radical for the time and place. He said the man's body belongs to the wife in the same way her's belongs to him! They are not to abstain unless it is mutally agreed upon and only for a short time.

He did see persecution and trouble coming - he anticipated the coming of Christ - and said being single was best but not required. He sums it up in the Love Chapter a few passages away.

So, I think Pullman's rebellion and railing against the horrors of religious history is warranted. But anyone's being abusive toward Christ is certainly not.

GordonBlood said...

The funny thing is that plenty of Christian leaders have advocated the book. I suppose most important for me would be the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Shygetz said...

I've only read the first book (The Golden Compass), and I didn't find it to be wholly anti-church. Indeed, from the first book it appears that the bad guys are only part of the church, and other factions of the church are good guys (or, at least, not wholly bad guys). The first book is mainly against religious extremism. My wife (who has read the whole series) tells me that the books get MUCH more anti-religion in the later two books.

I find objection 3 to be hilarious. Loss of sexual innocence is probably the most popular interpretation of the Garden of Eden allegory. It was attested to by the early church as a main part of the fall of man (e.g. St. Jerome, St. Augustine). But now an atheist says it...OH NOES!

You are right on target with your takedown of Calvin. Pullman's novels are a loving ode compared to history.

And I object to the Catholics' use of the words "truth" and "authority". They should replace it with "unfounded myth" and...ummm...what's the opposite of authority?

Edwardtbabinski said...

Hi Kevin H,
You're a very pleasant guy so far as I can tell by reading your websites.

However, unlike your view I don't believe that "where and when Christ's influence has been most received, progress is made," unless you automatically delete in your mind all negative aspects of single-mindedly devout Christians throughout history as "not really Christian," which is not playing fair or reasonably with the evidence.

Also, google these three words

Babinski Latourette uniqueness

to find my comments on his point of view.

Lastly, consider the words of fellow Christians on Christianity:

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-- Blaise Pascal, Pensees,
(1670)

"Christianity has committed crimes so monstrous that the sun might sicken at them in heaven."
--G. K. Chesterton in the Daily News, as quoted by Robert Blatchford, God and My Neighbor http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/6172

"There were any number of real Catholic doctrines I should then have thought disgraceful to the Church. There are any number which I can still easily imagine being made to look disgraceful to the Church."
--G.K. Chesterton, The Catholic Church and Conversion, Chapter II: The Obvious Blunders, Nihil Obstat: Arthur J. Scanlan, S.T.D. Censor Librorum.Imprimatur: Patrick Cardinal Hayes+Archbishop, Copyright, 1926 by MacMillan Company

"Even more disturbing as you say, is the ghastly record of Christian persecution. It had begun in Our Lord's time--'Ye know not what spirit ye are of' (John of all people!). I think we must fully face the fact that when Christianity does not make a man very much better, it makes him very much worse... Conversion may make of one who was, if no better, no worse than an animal, something like a devil."
--C. S. Lewis in a letter to Bede Griffiths, dated Dec. 20, 1961, not long before Lewis' death, The Letters of C. S. Lewis, ed., W. H. Lewis, (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1966), p. 301.

"For centuries Christianity treasured the great commandment of love and mercy as traditional truth without recognizing it as a reason for opposing slavery, witch burning and all the other ancient and medieval forms of inhumanity. It was only when Christianity experienced the influence of the thinking of the Age of Enlightenment that it was stirred into entering the struggle for humanity. The remembrance of this ought to preserve it forever from assuming any air of superiority in comparison with thought."
--Albert Schweitzer, Out of My Life and Thought: An Autobiography (New York: The New American Library, 1963).

"[E]ven the great monastic communities of western Europe, such as Cluny Abbey, founded on renunciation of the world and denial of the flesh, quickly became owners of vast estates and wielders of enormous political power. They no longer protested against the world. They were the world, in all its pageantry and power, and they validated the dream of empire, which they consecrated as Crusades to destroy the infidel. That is why people should not look to religion for salvation or for a solution to the ills of the world. Failure to see the possibilities for corruption and destruction in religion is a failure of spiritual perception of the first order. Few people fail to see the destructive possibilities of other people’s religions, but they can be remarkably blind to their own."
--Keith Ward, The Case For Religion

"It is interesting that the above passage was written as part of an attempt to argue that religion continues to be good and relevant in today’s society. Keith Ward is a defender of religion, not an opponent, but even he can see these things and recognize just how dangerous religion can become. Of course, what he describes here is quite unremarkable. Sure religion can become corrupt and destructive — but so can any other philosophy. Ward makes a point of noting this as well, so why focus on religion? The difference between religion and other philosophies is the fact that other philosophies don’t pretend to be holy or creations of a perfect God. Religions make total and absolute demands on adherents; other philosophies generally do not. Religion is not inherently evil, but it is not immune to all of the problems which afflict people generally and human organizationsin particular."
--Austin Cline (atheist editor of about.com section on atheism/agnosticism)

Edwardtbabinski said...

Dear Kevin H,

One last matter, about your comments on the verses from Paul.

I think it is quite plain that Paul wrote that he wished all were as he was, celibate. "as I am." And that if a man has not a wife, it's best that he did not take one. And that celibacy was also best in lieu of the soon coming of the Son of Man and so as to be able to serve God single-mindedly instead of serving one's spouse. All of those teachings as well as Paul's line that "it is better to marry than to burn," are never cited during marriage ceremonies. They are ignored, especially by Protestants. But as I said when I cited the Pauline verses and other verses as well, including the one by Jesus, who hung around with male apostles and about whom no wife is ever mentioned, and who said, "some have made themselves eunichs for the kingdom of heaven." And Moses's verse about "not coming at your wives" before the men were allowed to approach God on mount Sinai, and the verse in Revelation about the 140,000 male virgins before God's throne who "had not been defiled with women."

Edwardtbabinski said...

Dear Kevin H.

O.K. one more note,

Google:

Babinski Latourette uniqueness

for my view of Latourette's claims concerning Christianity and history

Concerning your quotations of him, note that everything that's now big once had a small beginning. And Christianity as a religion made some very attractive promises that couldn't help but draw notice, like personal physical immortality after a general resurrection, and added to that some hideous threats, like "those who do not believe shall be damned" (late added ending of Mark), and, "those who believe not are damned already" (verse in John 3), and, "those whose names are not written in the book of life were tossed into a lake of fire whose smoke goes up forever" (Rev.) Christians also made predictions that it was "the last hour" and a "very little while" before "he who is coming will come." (See my online article, "The Lowdown on God's Showdown" for a list of such verses)

The combination of such a yummy carrot, and such a painful stick, along with predictions of soon coming world judgment were not common in the ancient world. The only new religion to come along and use similar huge carrots and sticks was the monotheistic religion of Islam, 500 years later, which also started small and inauspiciously via tales of Mohammed and then spread quickly. And both Christianity and Islam attracted the sponsorship of people in power, i.e., Constantine for Christianity. After one reads all the laws the Christian Emperors enacted against all rival faiths, even rival Christian faiths, and the persecutions they enacted and the monies they devoted toward the church, the story really isn't amazing. It's part of how world religions get to be world religions, and how mass movements arise in general. See Eric Hoffer's book on mass movements in religion and politics, titled, THE TRUE BELIEVER. See also THE LUCIFER PRINCIPLE.

Nick said...

GordonBlood said...
The funny thing is that plenty of Christian leaders have advocated the book. I suppose most important for me would be the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Hooray for the Archbishop! At least he's not completely insane, which I'm not sure can be said of the medieval religionists of the Catholic League. They HATE the books and film, seeing their author as the pied piper of atheism and are urging a boycott of the new movie. Normal Catholics, of course, disagree.

On the Protestant side of the aisle, Focus on the Family accuses the author of being “blasphemous and heretical” .

Meanwhile the ever vigilant and satirical Landover Baptist Church weighs in on the controversy with The Golden Compass Vs. The Holy Bible.

Anonymous said...

Ed,

It seems that most Christians would agree with you on the abuse and politicized perversion of Christianity. Whether the abusers are true Christians is beside the point. Even true ones can (and often do) fall short of what Christianity teaches.

BTW, I think the " No True Scotsman" is not a fallacy other than ad hominem. Being that there is no objective standard for whether a Scot drinks milk with porridge,etc, it is merely ad hom to denounce him for it.

I think Lewis is obviously talking about Christendom's sad history. The more precious or pure something is, the more ghastly is its fall.

Likewise, when Chesterton, et.al. use the term "Christianity" they have a broader application in mind, more along the lines of Christendom's sad history.

Paul's comments on the Corinthian's questions in chapter 7 is indeed not often quoted in marriage ceremonies. But chapter 13 certainly is. I can't add much to my initial post. Paul wished the Corinthians would remain single in light of 1). coming persecution,2). the imminent return of Christ, and 3). total devotion to the Lord in light of the shortness of time. He does not forbid marriage and denounces those who do in 1 Timothy.

The 144,000 were not defiled by the rampant sexual perversion depicted in the Revelation. Bottom line, the Scriptures teach sexual freedom is found in the parameters of marriage. The "world" teaches sexual freedom via unbounded adventurism.

Finally, I'm not impressed by Christianity being embraced by Constantine, I'm impressed that it survived the humiliating execution of it's obscure founder!

Martin said...

Ed, can you post a link to the Theonomist website where you say Calvin's 1555 sermon is published?

Shygetz said...

"No True Scotsman" is shorthand for a popular form of question begging and/or equivocation fallacy. It's not ad hominem because it does not rely upon irrelevant defamation of the arguer to undermine the argument. Rather, it changes the definition of a category word to exclude counter-examples to the argument.