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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...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'?
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.
[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.
...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?
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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:
IIRC, Satan gets the male pronoun, though.
Interesting then, isn't it, that Gibson chose a woman to play Satan?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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:
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:
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').
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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/
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/
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:
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'?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.