or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › How close is close enough? The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How close is close enough? The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe - Page 2

post #41 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
The plot didn't "stray" into Christian theology, it was designed with just that purpose.

I find it interesting that it is accepted as reasonable for Lewis to write blatant Christian propaganda designed to be appealing to children but it is not accepted as reasonable to be critical of the very motivation?

Am I being a sour-puss about it? Sure. I don't think it's cute. Every day we lose people to a new holy war fueled by the religious on both sides.

It irritates and disturbs me that while thousands of young people are dying in a crusade we have a children's movie celebrating death, violence and domination all justified by vague religious prophecies. The children's crusade of the 21st century.

In 1993 this might have been cute, when Islamic terrorism was rare and our own "counter"-terrorism was even more rare. But in 2005 it's a different animal and we live in a different time.

It's not Lewis's fault that the religious zealots on both sides have started a culture war, of course, but no man is an island.

Oh, I don't know, in The Last Battle the Telmarines [an obvious Arabic culture] are saved as well.

But back to why you find this problematic -- IF you look at the last 200 years of human progress, or even the last 75, or maybe even just the 20th century -- you see a great deal of trouble caused by man looking to scientism/materialism as salvific. I don't think it's justifiable to single out 'Christian propaganda,' or by comparison be concerned that people becoming Christian could be a problem. The tie-in to 'holy war' is getting pretty tired. I don't understand how it is possible to constantly hark back to the 16th century (and even further) to cite the 'terrors of Christianity,' but somehow miss what happened in living memory, and caused by various purified forms of materialism.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #42 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin
If there is any correspondence of your views of CS Lewis' text to the actual text, would it be unreasonable then to reference back to the text from your premises.

As I already stated quite clearly, I am talking about the movie, not the books.

Quote:
Aslan is not a man at all. Where do you get this from?

Aslan is male. Race of creature makes little difference in Narnia, they are superficial devices mean to excite the imagination and illustrate basic good/evil conflicts (centaur = good, cyclops = bad).

Aslan is not a lion. Lions do not speak and create universes.

Quote:
Similarly, even a paradox such as 'muscular Jesus' is hard to weave sense of (for a non-American anyway: in England, I would venture that around this time of the year, most people think of 'baby Jesus' rather than your offering).

Then that is, perhaps, one reason you might not understand what I am saying. Muscular Jesus is not an exclusively American idea, but definitely a strong one in America. It is borne of America's idea of rugged individualism; how a man comes to where he is because of his own power, and how power is proof of virtue. Christ was most virtuous, therefore Christ must have been powerful; you'll see emphasis on the temple cleansing and such.

Quote:
Well, the qualities or essence of a lion presuppose its actions. Lions do bite - children associate this with lions, and hence the expectation of a drama. After all, we are not dealing in comedy.

Lewis chose to make Jesus a lion. Why not a lamb?

Quote:
If your premise is that the children are pointless then it is to no surprise that your conclusion is that they, the children, are meaningless.

In reality, children are never truly leaders of men. There are reasons for this; children are weak and selfish. Not because of some individual flaw, but because that is all they are capable of; their bodies are immature as are their minds.
The story of child leaders are inherently false.

Quote:
Come on - this is really lazy logic and a lack of application of reason as a critique.....for a lowly children's story.

I don't consider it a "lowly children's story". Narnia is a powerful social force and it deserves to be discussed critically. Lewis had a motive in writing it, I can dissect it.

Quote:
A lot of adults seem to enjoy sneering and condescending on childrens writers lately; also belittling the targeted audience. As such, it becomes harder to take adults seriously. Children are gripped through identifying with characters; adults may balk; I don't disagree that I find the text disinteresting.

I read a lot of children/teen work. I read Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy and adored it. I love the Harry Potter books.

You say that children identify with characters... what do girls gather from Narnia? Susan is weak and told not to fight... she does nothing but weep and act shocked. Lucy is a clown with healing potion; a servant.

I am talking about the movie, not the books.


dmz:

Quote:
IIRC, Satan gets the male pronoun, though.

Interesting then, isn't it, that Gibson chose a woman to play Satan?

Quote:
I don't think it's justifiable to single out 'Christian propaganda,' or by comparison be concerned that people becoming Christian could be a problem.

We are talking about Narnia, darling, do not try and pretend no fire exists in one space by saying another space is alight elsewhere.

If you want to discuss the danger of "scientism/materialism" propaganda aimed at children that is wonderful, but that's not what we are discussing here.

Quote:
The tie-in to 'holy war' is getting pretty tired. I don't understand how it is possible to constantly hark back to the 16th century (and even further) to cite the 'terrors of Christianity,' but somehow miss what happened in living memory, and caused by various purified forms of materialism.

When two sides fight and cite religion as one of the main justifications it's difficult to not make that association.

Even the crusades were not purely religious in motive.

If this is a subject that doesn't interest you or makes you upset, feel free to not discuss it. But please do not try and quash it with off-topic flag waving.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #43 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Then that is, perhaps, one reason you might not understand what I am saying. Muscular Jesus is not an exclusively American idea, but definitely a strong one in America. It is borne of America's idea of rugged individualism; how a man comes to where he is because of his own power, and how power is proof of virtue. Christ was most virtuous, therefore Christ must have been powerful; you'll see emphasis on the temple cleansing and such.

There was, a few years ago, a pretty widespread re-branding of Jesus as much, much more muscular than I've ever seen in my lifetime. But it's also connected to muscular Christianity, I suspect. There were loads of jesus t-shirts with muscular arms and weightlifting and whatnot. It was really, really strange.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #44 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Interesting then, isn't it, that Gibson chose a woman to play Satan?



We are talking about Narnia, darling, do not try and pretend no fire exists in one space by saying another space is alight elsewhere.

If you want to discuss the danger of "scientism/materialism" propaganda aimed at children that is wonderful, but that's not what we are discussing here.



When two sides fight and cite religion as one of the main justifications it's difficult to not make that association.

Even the crusades were not purely religious in motive.

If this is a subject that doesn't interest you or makes you upset, feel free to not discuss it. But please do not try and quash it with off-topic flag waving.

Well, if you look closely, Gibson did the same thing with Satan, that he did with Herod -- the wig was prominent in both key scenes. He may have been making a sly association with gender confusion when it fell off at the end. In the end, it appeared that Satan was a transvestite. (I could be wrong, though)

The problem with bringing up 'holy war' is that you are attempting to place your ideology as 'neutral' -- that 'holy wars' only happen between 'religions'. There is still the subtext that 'holy war' is solvable if we only got our 'religions' properly 'demystified,' etc.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #45 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Well, if you look closely, Gibson did the same thing with Satan, that he did with Herod -- the wig was prominent in both key scenes. He may have been making a sly association with gender confusion when it fell off at the end. In the end, it appeared that Satan was a transvestite. (I could be wrong, though)

Herod didn't look female in the least, just homosexual and weak.

Quote:
The problem with bringing up 'holy war' is that you are attempting to place your ideology as 'neutral' -- that 'holy wars' only happen between 'religions'. There is still the subtext that 'holy war' is solvable if we only got our 'religions' properly 'demystified,' etc.

You aren't addressing anything I have actually said. You are boxing shadows. Putting quotation marks around things no one has said. The fabrication of devils.

This is your typical track, of course, ignoring the actual topic and derailing it with some off-topic rant about how everyone is mean to Christians.

What kind of martyr is it that sprints into the street and starts the fight that ends in his death?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #46 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
You aren't addressing anything I have actually said. You are boxing shadows. Putting quotation marks around things no one has said. The fabrication of devils.

This is your typical track, of course, ignoring the actual topic and derailing it with some off-topic rant about how everyone is mean to Christians.

What kind of martyr is it that sprints into the street and starts the fight that ends in his death?

hmmmm......take a look at this:
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
I find it interesting that it is accepted as reasonable for Lewis to write blatant Christian propaganda designed to be appealing to children but it is not accepted as reasonable to be critical of the very motivation?

Here, you have to admit, that you are coming, ad hoc, to the conversation. You are questioning the propriety of "blatant Christian propaganda" in our public lives together, but you don't really say why, except that you allude to it as offensive/suspect:
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Am I being a sour-puss about it? Sure. I don't think it's cute. Every day we lose people to a new holy war fueled by the religious on both sides.

Here, you attempt to triangulate the previous allusion to "blatant Christian propaganda" as relevant to a 'new holy war,' but, again, you don't supply a reason to tie Lewis' "blatant Christian propaganda" to this 'new holy war' --- or even give reasons why this 'new holy war,' is more dangerous/different than regular war (which has touched at least several people you know for a variety of reasons, none of which, I would wager, would qualify as a 'new holy war').
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
It irritates and disturbs me that while thousands of young people are dying in a crusade we have a children's movie celebrating death, violence and domination all justified by vague religious prophecies. The children's crusade of the 21st century.

This pretty much echos that previous paragraph, in that you've pulled a lot of allusions together in one post, but all they really have to do with each other in reality, is their proximity.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #47 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Here, you have to admit, that you are coming, ad hoc, to the conversation.

We're talking about Narnia. I didn't walk into a thread about the horrors of "scientism" and start into Christianity.

Quote:
Here, you attempt to triangulate the previous allusion to "blatant Christian propaganda" as relevant to a 'new holy war,' but, again, you don't supply a reason to tie Lewis' "blatant Christian propaganda" to this 'new holy war' --- or even give reasons why this 'new holy war,' is more dangerous/different than regular war (which has touched at least several people you know for a variety of reasons, none of which, I would wager, would qualify as a 'new holy war').

First of all, this new holy war doesn't have to be any more dangerous than any other war to be a worthy topic of discussion. It is interesting to me that you are attempting not to defeat an argument, but stop an idea from even being expressed. You seem to believe your involvement in this discussion is necessary, it is not. If it offends you, look away. If you want to argue about substance, feel free to involve yourself.

As for the correlation between Narnia and holy wars, I never said Narnia was the cause of holy wars. Anything that draws artificial boundaries between people, dehumanizes people and gives people irrational ideas of entitlement only greases the slide to war, violence and aggression.

Was this Lewis' goal? I can't imagine it would be. Is something harmless simply because its designer meant no harm? Of course not.

The deputy sheriffs, the soldiers, the governors get paid,
And the marshals and cops get the same,
But the poor white man's used in the hands of them all like a tool.
He's taught in his school
From the start by the rule
That the laws are with him
To protect his white skin
To keep up his hate
So he never thinks straight
'Bout the shape that he's in
But it ain't him to blame
He's only a pawn in their game.


What we feed children is important. Obviously CS Lewis agreed with me.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #48 of 80
I just finished the second book of Narmia : the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Obviously it's a book for kids.

You will notice that the author wrote three times : beware to not lock yourself in a wardrobe.

Was he locked in a wardrobe while he was a kid ? I wonder.
post #49 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
IF you look at the last 200 years of human progress, or even the last 75, or maybe even just the 20th century -- you see a great deal of trouble caused by man looking to scientism/materialism as salvific.

Science is salvific - without progress in agricultrual sciences, we would not be able to support the current world population. Without future scientific advances coming quickly enough, we will not be able to continue.

All religion does is make you a bit happier as you starve to death.

BTW - groverat, the lion biting the head off the witch is not detailed in the book. Aslan jumps on her and they roll around, then the next chapter announces that she is dead.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #50 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Science is salvific - without progress in agricultrual sciences, we would not be able to support the current world population. Without future scientific advances coming quickly enough, we will not be able to continue.

All religion does is make you a bit happier as you starve to death.

BTW - groverat, the lion biting the head off the witch is not detailed in the book. Aslan jumps on her and they roll around, then the next chapter announces that she is dead.

Right,

and again right.
I was totally disapointed that the book did not contain more details about the death of the witch.
post #51 of 80
Quote:
TW - groverat, the lion biting the head off the witch is not detailed in the book. Aslan jumps on her and they roll around, then the next chapter announces that she is dead.

Quote:
Aslan is not a lion. Lions do not speak and create universes.


Such logic is truly exceptional in being most unreasonable. The concept of a lion in a 'fantasy' novel seems implausible to all but Groverat who prefers to think of Aslan as a 'man' rather than a talking lion. Why is it most children can 'symbolise' Aslan with a lion, yet the poster reckons Aslan is a 'man'?.

This is most peculiar.

Quote:
Lewis chose to make Jesus a lion. Why not a lamb?

Even more peculiar. So Aslan is now Jesus, or is Aslan now a lion? Why not a lamb? Strange paradox. Either Aslan is a lion or Aslan is not a lion. To say in one breathe that Aslan is not a lion because lions don't talk and then proclaim that Lewis chose to make Jesus a lion ....really bites the biscuit. Which is it to be?

Indeed - why not a frog, a turnip, a cabbage? Is it meaningful to even ask that question after the text is written and film produced? Why is it that children associate Aslan more with a lion?


Quote:
I don't consider it a "lowly children's story". Narnia is a powerful social force and it deserves to be discussed critically. Lewis had a motive in writing it, I can dissect it.

I seem to agree with you: indeed you can dissect it yet there is no critique based on the qualities of a critique: an appraisal of the film. Is there anything of value in such a dissection other than opinion based justification?

Quote:
In reality, children are never truly leaders of men. There are reasons for this; children are weak and selfish. Not because of some individual flaw, but because that is all they are capable of; their bodies are immature as are their minds.
The story of child leaders are inherently false.

Oh boy. "Children are weak and selfish." And are adults not weak and selfish? Not because of some individual flaw, but because that is all they are capable of; their bodies are immature as are their minds.

In essence, imputing characteristics of 'weakness and selfishness' in children as universal characteristics - traits which are also shared by adults non-universally is an invalid argument. The contempt in your tone for children makes me shiver by the way.

Joan of Arc was still a child at 14 years when she saved Domremy and her French Dauphin from defeat by the English, and later burnt alive for her love of her country. It may be suprising to learn that she really was feminine, and not masculine.
post #52 of 80
Quote:
You will notice that the author wrote three times : beware to not lock yourself in a wardrobe.

Seems that Lewis was locked in his ivory tower at Oxford University. Guess that's a broom cupboard of sorts.

http://cslewis.drzeus.net/bio/
post #53 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin
Seems that Lewis was locked in his ivory tower at Oxford University. Guess that's a broom cupboard of sorts.

http://cslewis.drzeus.net/bio/

post #54 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
...It is interesting to me that you are attempting not to defeat an argument, but stop an idea from even being expressed. You seem to believe your involvement in this discussion is necessary, it is not. If it offends you, look away. If you want to argue about substance, feel free to involve yourself...

But groverat, there's is no argument to defeat, it's only supposition and blue sky. You are probably (?) relying on a vague, at-large animus to carry off the 'connection' between 'blatant Christian propaganda' and the 'new holy war' -- but you really haven't gotten out of the blocks. I understand you have a problem with 'blatant Christian propaganda', that it is very bad, and the 'new holy war' is something we should be concerned with, but you don't say why.

The statement:
Quote:
Anything that draws artificial boundaries between people, dehumanizes people and gives people irrational ideas of entitlement only greases the slide to war, violence and aggression.

...is meant to be illuminating, but still, how does this tie into some sense of immediacy, or relevance, to Lewis' 'blatant Christian porpaganda'?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #55 of 80
Damn it, you guys are going to force me to read these things.

Personally, I enjoy propaganda, so long as it's good, but this is a conceit that we are not going to delve into.

A question. What if martyrs are not automatically Jesus figures? Hard sale, perhaps. But the whole lambs and lions bit. I'm beginning to suspect Aslan might emphatically NOT be any kind of Jesus. That would be interesting, though I'm not sure Lewis is that interesting himself... it makes for some neat possibilities.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #56 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
[BThe moral lessons of the film are what disturbed me most.
- Run away with strangers.
- Fighting solves your problems. If you fail, you redeem yourself with violence.
- You deserve to be king no matter what you do. [/B]

This pretty much summarizes my problem with it too. They say this is a Christian tale, but I don't see much connection to the teachings of Jesus. It certainly represents the myths propogated by Christian churches. The whole notion of holy wars goes so against what Jesus taught it is laughable. Not to mention the worship of royalty that I don't believe appears in his teachings.
"I'm learning how to meditate, so far so good."
Donald Fagen and Walter Becker
Reply
"I'm learning how to meditate, so far so good."
Donald Fagen and Walter Becker
Reply
post #57 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by blue2kdave
...They say this is a Christian tale, but I don't see much connection to the teachings of Jesus. It certainly represents the myths propogated by Christian churches...

That's a confusing statement: so it isn't Christian --- but it really is?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #58 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
That's a confusing statement: so it isn't Christian --- but it really is?

Contrary to the teachings of christ, but in line with the teachings of the church.

To me the various Christian leaders and churches didn't seem to have much in common with what JC would want.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #59 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Contrary to the teachings of christ, but in line with the teachings of the church.

To me the various Christian leaders and churches didn't seem to have much in common with what JC would want.

So substitutionary atonement, by grace, is no longer taught? That's a truly fascinating proposition.

If I didn't know any better, I'd say that that concept (all too clearly laid out in Lewis' work) is so fundamentally troubling to an unbeliever, that he finds it difficult to comment on it coherently.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #60 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
So substitutionary atonement, by grace, is no longer taught? That's a truly fascinating proposition.

If I didn't know any better, I'd say that that concept (all too clearly laid out in Lewis' work) is so fundamentally troubling to an unbeliever, that he finds it difficult to comment on it coherently.

You lost track of what you were responding to, it didn't have anything to do with substitutionary atonement:

"The whole notion of holy wars goes so against what Jesus taught it is laughable. Not to mention the worship of royalty that I don't believe appears in his teachings."

Also, Christ was a hippie communist, I don't think that he would fit in at a current Baptist church for example.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #61 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Contrary to the teachings of christ, but in line with the teachings of the church.

To me the various Christian leaders and churches didn't seem to have much in common with what JC would want.

Thank you, well put. I simply believe that what is known today as a Christian church has very little do most of the time with the simplicity of Jesus' message. Churches are where human politics intersect faith, and this often results in behavior that contradicts what I know as Jesus' teachings. Jesus taught love and compassion for all, not war and worship of royalty.
"I'm learning how to meditate, so far so good."
Donald Fagen and Walter Becker
Reply
"I'm learning how to meditate, so far so good."
Donald Fagen and Walter Becker
Reply
post #62 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
You lost track of what you were responding to, it didn't have anything to do with substitutionary atonement:

"The whole notion of holy wars goes so against what Jesus taught it is laughable. Not to mention the worship of royalty that I don't believe appears in his teachings."

Also, Christ was a hippie communist, I don't think that he would fit in at a current Baptist church for example.

Let's take a look at what preceeded that:
Quote:
They say this is a Christian tale, but I don't see much connection to the teachings of Jesus.

To miss the concept of substitutionary attonment in Christ's teachings, let alone in Lewis' work is something of a mystery. The mystery is compounded by a vauge assertion that 'holy war' is taught in 'the church' while substitutionary attonment is not.

There still seems to be a vague, at-large animus to attempting to carry off the connection between 'blatant Christian (??) propaganda' and a 'new holy war', this is baffling.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #63 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by blue2kdave
Thank you, well put. I simply believe that what is known today as a Christian church has very little do most of the time with the simplicity of Jesus' message. Churches are where human politics intersect faith, and this often results in behavior that contradicts what I know as Jesus' teachings. Jesus taught love and compassion for all, not war and worship of royalty.

If you missed the theme of substitutionary atonement in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe -- and are positing that Christian teaching promotes the worship of Royalty, are you sure you understand either Jesus' message or Christian teachings enough to comment? Perhaps a listing of the doctrinal positions of the various denominations would be helpful in showing this connection.

Just a thought.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #64 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin
This is most peculiar.

Well in the lazy, undeveloped world of Narnia it's a problem. When a writer includes different races simply for the sake of including them it is not the reader's duty to build a rationale for him.

Quote:
So Aslan is now Jesus, or is Aslan now a lion? Why not a lamb? Strange paradox. Either Aslan is a lion or Aslan is not a lion.

Aslan is a lion symbol for a man. I really don't know why you are making this seem complicated. It is not.

Aslan is the symbol of a man, Christ.
That symbol is the lion; violent king.
Christ = violent king?

Quote:
Oh boy. "Children are weak and selfish." And are adults not weak and selfish?

Did I say that adults are not weak and selfish?

Quote:
In essence, imputing characteristics of 'weakness and selfishness' in children as universal characteristics - traits which are also shared by adults non-universally is an invalid argument. The contempt in your tone for children makes me shiver by the way.

And the culture of child worship makes me shiver just as much. I have no contempt for children, I only lack the delusional belief that they are miniature adults.

Quote:
Joan of Arc was still a child at 14 years when she saved Domremy and her French Dauphin from defeat by the English, and later burnt alive for her love of her country. It may be suprising to learn that she really was feminine, and not masculine.

And god talked to her, as well. This is reliable and accurate history!



dmz:

Quote:
...is meant to be illuminating, but still, how does this tie into some sense of immediacy, or relevance, to Lewis' 'blatant Christian porpaganda'?

Lewis' goal was to influence the minds of children; to open the door for Christ. Why would a child's mind be closed to Christ in the first place? What otherwise-distasteful messages was he sugar-coating?

I never said there was any sort of immediacy at all. That is yet another straw-man from you, one of an infinite number.

How many drops of rain are in a rainstorm?
If I am but one actor in a crime involving thousands, is my part not worthy of discussion?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #65 of 80
dmz:



Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Lewis' goal was to influence the minds of children;

I think you meant ...souls of children

Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Why would a child's mind be closed to Christ in the first place? What otherwise-distasteful messages was he sugar-coating?

I guess the 'otherwise-distastefull message' that Lewis 'sugar coated' must have been something other than substitutional atonement; I don't see much else in the book that would be recognized by a child --- unless you're serious about the holy warrior thing --- in which case, the Harry Potter series will turn my children into Wiccans, and Treasure Island turn them into pirates. (I'd let them read Tom Sawyer but I can't afford the Ritalin.)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #66 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
If you missed the theme of substitutionary atonement in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe -- and are positing that Christian teaching promotes the worship of Royalty, are you sure you understand either Jesus' message or Christian teachings enough to comment? Perhaps a listing of the doctrinal positions of the various denominations would be helpful in showing this connection.

Just a thought.

I know that my point is subtle and somewhat inflammatory, but I believe that most churches have hierarchical power structures, much like royalty. Certainly the pope is glorified much like a king. Also there are many references as God as a King in the bible, certainly equating royalty with the divine. This is not an accident. Nothing that I was taught in the teachings of Jesus specifically (and it has been a awhile) would seem to indicate that we should adhere to these kind of power structures. I am separating out the teachings of Jesus from the bible, since much of the bible has little to do with Jesus. Remember, the bible as we know it is simply a collection of stories about Jesus tacked onto the Hebrew texts, approved by the Roman emperor Constantine. I believe it was at that time that the true message and teachings of Jesus was lost.
"I'm learning how to meditate, so far so good."
Donald Fagen and Walter Becker
Reply
"I'm learning how to meditate, so far so good."
Donald Fagen and Walter Becker
Reply
post #67 of 80

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #68 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz I think you meant ...souls of children

No, I meant the minds of children.

Quote:
I guess the 'otherwise-distastefull message' that Lewis 'sugar coated' must have been something other than substitutional atonement; I don't see much else in the book that would be recognized by a child --- unless you're serious about the holy warrior thing --- in which case, the Harry Potter series will turn my children into Wiccans, and Treasure Island turn them into pirates. (I'd let them read Tom Sawyer but I can't afford the Ritalin.)

Did I say that Narnia turns kids into holy warriors?

Are you making even the slightest effort to understand what I'm saying or is it just easier to pretend that the conversation is going along lines you find easier to deal with?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #69 of 80
I dont think that Aslan is the equal of Jesus, it's a deity who created narmia. He is supposed to be related to the emperor of the universe : it's a polytheistic creation. The white witch is an equivalent of Satan, a fallen angel. In this way Aslan is more alike an warrior archangel.

BTW the author claimed that this book was supposed to prepare child for christianity, and this book was indeed very popular in the christians circles. But I doubt that this book have such a great influence on childs minds (even if the goal of this book was to influence them). I find the book intertaining but childish. I also read two book of Harry potter (5 and 6) and I find them much more mature, sophistacated (plots, study of characters) than Narmia, even if Harry potter fall in the caricature with the Dubleys (but that's humor here).

Many times, adults tend to influence their kids, in order to make them copycat. But most of the time it fail. If CS lewis thinked that his book will be a big contribution to christianism, I think he failed, and was quite arrogant to think so. Most childs will take this book at it is : a fairy tale, like Santa Klaus. Something that childs love to hear , but that they forgot quickly when they are becoming adults.
post #70 of 80
Not remembering much of the book when it was read to me in 4th grade, I thought the movie was pretty good. There are some things that I remembered for no particular reason or importance. Like I thought mothballs would fall out of the wardrobe when they opened it...and it did. I am pretty sure that happened in the book as well.

Either way, the movie was pretty boring, until at least when the wolves headed out towards the beavers dam.

groverat, I think your taking a cynical and odd viewpoint of the movies plot. Do you watch western movies as well and make comments like"oh leave the women to clean and cook while you go out"?

<for everyone>
Learn to accept a movie for what it is, not what you want it to be.
0 People Found This Reply Helpful
Reply
0 People Found This Reply Helpful
Reply
post #71 of 80
By random chance processes, this month's issue of Christian History & Biography covers Lewis. Some interesting facts on his life, fighting (and wounded) in WWI, and taking in Children during the Battle of Britain are covered, some of them here.


Powerdoc:
I think that is would be very hard for an unbelieving child to effectively connect with the allegorical references in Lewis work. Lewis was very much the studied theologian -- he knew full well that 'getting saved' was not just a transfer of information:
from Lewis:
Quote:
"Let us suppose that there were a land like Narnia and that the Son of God, as He became a Man in our world, became a Lion there, and then imagine what would happen."

from Christian History & Biography:
Quote:
As Lewis explains in his essay "Sometimes Fairy Stories May Say Best What's to Be Said," at first he had no intention of promoting Christian ideas. He began to write The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe because he had begun to see images: "a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion." The fairy tale seemed the best literary form to handle the events that were growing from the images. Later on, he began to see how the stories could be used to get away from stained-glass boredom and cultivate Christian feelings, especially among children who were alienated from Sunday school. To teach the Chronicles as Christian doctrine is to defeat Lewis's purpose in writing. Similarly, to demand that the reader respond with the "delighted praise of beauty" is to foster the literary snobbery that Lewis hated.

another article covers this in a little more depth:
Quote:
One thing leads to another. In The Abolition of Man, Lewis argued, echoing Plato, that in educating children one must instill "emotions organized by trained habit into stable sentiments," otherwise they will grow into "men without chests," lacking strength of character to control their unruly passions. Basic virtuedutifulness, justice, prudence, self-control, love, fidelity, and so onwill not then survive, and society will sink into pagan barbarism.

Lewis therefore began writing fantasy tales for children that would teach these virtues by example. These are the Narnia stories (1950-56), seven tales built round the almost allegorical figure of Aslan, the lion Savior-Lord. In these and his other works of fiction, Lewis used the mythical manner to focus with imaginative and searching force realities that would get inside us to haunt us better than mere formal definitions could ever do.

it seems that Lewis was 'preaching to the choir" more than anything else.

groverat:

Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Did I say that Narnia turns kids into holy warriors?

I really think you are 99% the way there.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Am I being a sour-puss about it? Sure. I don't think it's cute. Every day we lose people to a new holy war fueled by the religious on both sides.

I think, to your credit, that you're being consistent here. The materialistic mindset is vehemently antithetical to what Lewis stood for and the values he represented. If we don't have souls, and are what B.F. Skinner said we are, then I suppose Lewis' work really is silly and dangerous. Conflict based on imaginary morals (since all morals are social constructs), and credence placed in imaginary revelation (since it is impossible for God to exist), should logically be avoided at all costs.

I'll be burning my copies of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, Plato's Republic, Luther's Bondage of the Will, and Augustine's City of God later. There's no telling the trouble my kids could get into being exposed to the same ideas that drove some of the most divisive/violent people in history, (And I'll be using Lex Rex and An Essay Concerning Human Understanding as bathroom tissue, since they motivated revolutionaries like Franklin and Jefferson.)

laugh, dammit -- I have to sharpen my daughters' broadswords and take them to Sunday School.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #72 of 80
thanks to all for keeping this civil.
"I'm learning how to meditate, so far so good."
Donald Fagen and Walter Becker
Reply
"I'm learning how to meditate, so far so good."
Donald Fagen and Walter Becker
Reply
post #73 of 80
I saw it yesterday.

I'm not qualified to comment on the Christian allegory but I will say this:

The Ice Queen? I would hit it. Thrice. And I don't care if she turned me to stone afterwards.
post #74 of 80
Saw it. Unimpressed.

Question-

In the books did Aslan know that he would come back from the dead because he was unjustly sacrificed on that particular stone table?

The movie sure as hell gave me that impression. My daughter got that impression and came to the conclusion that Aslan wasn't that big of a hero because he knew he would come back. I turned that into a teaching moment and asked her if that would be the case for Jesus as well and she decided it would be (if jesus really was a demigod, but she didn't buy that either).

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply
post #75 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
I think a movie about Lewis and Empson would likely be better. They could do a split screentwo men at their typewriters, calling one another names in scholarly journals!

Gorgeous. You should store this idea, elaborate it a bit
and pitch it to a movie company. It is pretty sound.
" I will not commit anything to memory that I can get from another source . . . "
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Reply
" I will not commit anything to memory that I can get from another source . . . "
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Reply
post #76 of 80
I watched the movie with my kids.
It's typically a movie for kids. My kids said that it was a better movie for them than the lord of the rings (less scary). But it's not a movie for adults. The special effects where amazing except for Aslan and the castors.

My kids and my wife (who is catholic) did not discovered any connection between Jesus and Aslan. If you don't search connections you will not find them. Even if the goal of CS Lewis was to convert kids to christianity I doubt that this book can have a great influence.

BTW it was the first time I saw, a digital projection. BTW you can still see some pixels in the letters of the movies, but the lack of dust and scratch, and the stability of the images are truely amazing
post #77 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by Vox Barbara
Gorgeous. You should store this idea, elaborate it a bit
and pitch it to a movie company. It is pretty sound.

I think it'll go. Maybe a third splitscreen of the writing of Empson Agonistes?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #78 of 80
All this talk of "Muscular Jesus" reminds me of the following:



Apologies for going off topic, but this thread has made my day at work bearable by being both amusing and filled with intelligent debate.

Gracias!
post #79 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I watched the movie with my kids.
It's typically a movie for kids. My kids said that it was a better movie for them than the lord of the rings (less scary). But it's not a movie for adults. The special effects where amazing except for Aslan and the castors.

My kids and my wife (who is catholic) did not discovered any connection between Jesus and Aslan. If you don't search connections you will not find them. Even if the goal of CS Lewis was to convert kids to christianity I doubt that this book can have a great influence.

BTW it was the first time I saw, a digital projection. BTW you can still see some pixels in the letters of the movies, but the lack of dust and scratch, and the stability of the images are truely amazing

Edit : some connection between Aslan are more evident in the fifth book, with the Aurore boat at the end of this book, when Aslan explain to Lucy and Edmund, that he will never go back to Narnia, but that he will meet them in the future but not in the form of a lion.
It also appears in the other book that Aslan is a metamorph, able to take any form he want.
post #80 of 80
oh lord

this movie was bad.

i dont know about the source material so whatever.


honestly, i dont know how its doing so well, actually , yes i do

its a christain themed film. ahhh good ole' america


this movie was terrible, absolutely terrible.

acting sucked, cg sucked, action sucked,story was lame



sorry for ranting,


i want my money back .





EDIT: even for kids i thought this was bad. maybe if you were 8 years or younger it couldve been good, ONLY 8 years old or younger.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AppleOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › How close is close enough? The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe