July 18, 2005, 2:42 a.m. CST
by Amy's Flat Rat
No way is that actress twelve. Anyhoo, really looking forward to this, roll on christmas.
July 18, 2005, 2:42 a.m. CST
by Serious Black
Prepare to be indoctrinated.
July 18, 2005, 2:50 a.m. CST
I just read the book again yesterday and if you haven't read it you should. It takes all of a few hours. He mentions monsters so terrible he can't describe them. It would be cool to see some really freaked out creature in that sequence standing there leering at Aslan.
July 18, 2005, 2:51 a.m. CST
Haven't heard anything about it since...
July 18, 2005, 4:07 a.m. CST
by Triumph poops!
...The Lion, The Witch and her non-existent Wardrobe. HEY NOW! As for this movie, I can't wait. It even beats out KONG as the movie I most want to see come holiday time. So far it looks totally kick ass. Aslan will rule come Christmas.
July 18, 2005, 4:07 a.m. CST
aslan will be slain by darth maul
July 18, 2005, 5:02 a.m. CST
is 17 not 12. So for the pervs she's only illegal in some states, not all.
July 18, 2005, 6:38 a.m. CST
I could crank one to that voice alone.
July 18, 2005, 7:13 a.m. CST
July 18, 2005, 7:19 a.m. CST
by The True Priapic
Perfect.This proves the level of anus involved in this film.This production has bbsolutely no i.d. of its own.It's being sold as ,looks like and expects to be Lord of the Rings.Oh,and why is Aslan sad as he goes to his ...ahem..death?He must know he'll come back(How?Yeah,no-one knows but we'll get over that by saying-ad finitum-that it's a Christ allegory).Bollocks.I don't hold out any hope for this and the lack of imagination in this piece of shit makes me wince.Never has something so obviously been made to try and get the pennies from the pockets of the geek nation.The Director still creeps me out,oh and Liam is official now is he.Great.Another 'great teacher' role,eh?Must have taken ....seconds..to come up with that one.Irish Lion,eh?Why is the white quen wearing black in the 'crucifiction' scene?The director has a background in animation,of course..no wonder thois is going to be a cgi overload,he thinks he's making a cartoon.Can't wait for this to be critically 'mauled'.Geddit?..............Hot dogs.Hot dogs.HOT DOGS????
July 18, 2005, 8:37 a.m. CST
by The True Priapic
I can read thanks,wolfy.Sadly since being blinded in a bizarre masterbatory accident I have tended to not do as much as in my childhood.But honestlt..how do you know those books aint aged well if you haven't read them since you were a kid?Have to go,talking to you has turned me on.I love bei ng talked dirty to.God I need a wank...and I'm going to think of you,wolfy.My didlo has your name written all over it.Strangely your name on a plastic Dick fits!Weird that.................Hot dogs?
July 18, 2005, 8:55 a.m. CST
dear MR Priapric: [I am not of England so please forgive those words...] - - - - - - - I want you to KNOW something that may even scare you (I dont know .. you must be the judge)... - - - - - - - These ramblings of writings you are creating using your mind and hands - and put into the aint-it-cool-man-news .. bring me much laughings and enjoyingment. - - - - - - - NOTE: I 'collect' all those postings [using those keys: Control + 'C', then Control + the 'V'] and store them in a special place (called 'database') for later enjoyments & viewings. (that is how fukkin SAD I AM!!) - - - - - - - I reading this internetsite for many times
July 18, 2005, 9:04 a.m. CST
by The True Priapic
...my warped sensiblity comes from a broken heart.........NAHHHH!Am churning out more caffeine ramblings on the superman chat back.Which is bloomin mad.
July 18, 2005, 9:10 a.m. CST
I sad to hear of you are in pain Mr Priapic - I am now checking this superman chatback for more of you jokings. - - - - I will prepare the 'database'.
July 18, 2005, 9:41 a.m. CST
Sure, they're all children's books, but this one is a little like what The Hobbit is to LOTR (in the way that it's written, not the size difference). I can't wait to see how they adapt later books (unless this one bombs...). They'll probably combine the last two books together (Magician's Nephew and The Last Battle) and not even shoot The Horse And His Boy because a) even though it's good, it's like a side-story, b) the racist undertones that would be seen by everybody. This IS looking like LOTR, and you can see why with Richard Taylor on the case. But also, this is much more of a 'studio' movie, and the studio want it to be like LOTR because it made fuckloads of cash. I'm sure the thing about hotdogs is a joke, but the studio probably DID want it to be set in the U.S. (most likely during the 9/11 attacks, and not during the WW2 London bombings...)
July 18, 2005, 9:51 a.m. CST
Thank god they decided to be faithful to the good ol' theme of good v. evil. What would be the point of an earthquake? It wouldn't be "Hitler's bombing us 'cuz he's evil and there's evil in the world!" it would be "God's punishing us, kids! Tough luck!" A good thing SOMEONE in LA might still have a brain in their head.
July 18, 2005, 10:02 a.m. CST
Not that Sheloub (is that the right fucking spelling?) wasn't cool, but it was just a big spider. Isn't Aslan just a big Christly lion? Wouldn't it be more special just to see a REAL lion?
July 18, 2005, 11:07 a.m. CST
by The True Priapic
July 18, 2005, 12:09 p.m. CST
I think it would be wrong to see Aslan on McDonald's Happy Meals. Lewis would spin in his grave.
July 18, 2005, 12:41 p.m. CST
I agree with you about "Horse and His Boy." In fact, they're going to have to watch the whole race thing throughout the series. I just read "The Last Battle" again and had forgotten about the "Darkie" comments. Not very PC I'm afraid.
July 18, 2005, 12:48 p.m. CST
by Thunder Mammoth
thanks i just had it stuffed. ...looking forward to the Narnia film, BTW.
July 18, 2005, 12:55 p.m. CST
by Guy Gaduois
yeah, that's good, worry about the pc thing. Cause Uncle Remus will bring an end to civilization as we know it. "niggardly" is in no way a racist word, and yes, people in the past have had lingo that makes us cringe in our pc day, but seeing how pc killed comedy and raped it's corpse - can we just all agree that someone, somewhere is going to be pissed off at every story and TELL THE STORY ANYWAYS? Buncha book burning freaks. If we talk about yielding to the pc, it will never stop. Take away it's oxygen. Kill the beast. Here's a thought - if you're offended by religious talk, turn the station, change the website, close the book. If you're upset at what you think is racist - again, bear with me, turn the station, channel, close the book, go to another site. The only way words and images have power is if you give them power. Unless you really want government oversight into every damn thing you read, write, hear, see or think - just turn the channel. If you ask for "help" the Gov't will give it to without the aid of lubricant. Damn dirty apes.
July 18, 2005, 1:08 p.m. CST
The CGI looked like a video game and the real stuff looked like Lemony Snicket.
July 18, 2005, 1:18 p.m. CST
ADR stands for Automated Dialogue Replacement, Quint. Not a big deal, I'm just trying to get the right information out there.
July 18, 2005, 3:20 p.m. CST
by Some Dude
Friggin' hilarious. Although it is kind of sad for you susperstitious magic believers when the allegory makes more sense and is more rewarding than the Christian myth upon which it is based.
July 18, 2005, 3:43 p.m. CST
by Winky Man
I read all these books and I just don't see it. OK, the first one has the whole Aslan coming back from the dead thing, but The Silver Chair? Voyage of the Dawn Treader? Someone enlighten me as to what allegory or whatever these books were about, cause aside from Aslan being a Christ figure (which is persent in a Hell of a lot more literature than this series), my dumbness is missing something.
July 18, 2005, 3:48 p.m. CST
There is some in the Dawn Treader book when Eustace changes into a dragon. Other than that the main sources are in the first book (Aslan's sacrifice/resurrection) and the last book (false Aslan/the "real world). As for Some Dude...how does a talking lion and white witch make more sense than a real historical figure? You may not have to buy into Christian theology, but your criticism needs to be more coherent than that.
July 18, 2005, 3:51 p.m. CST
by Winky Man
First and last book don't need to be explained, since even my dumb ass can pick up on most of the references, but I have no clue how Eustace turning into a dragon relates to anything biblical. I'm all ears, maybe I'll learn sumpin. By the way, thanks for responding.
July 18, 2005, 4:16 p.m. CST
The imagery, as I see it, is a metaphor for conversion. Eustace tries to remove his scales himself, but every time he does they return. Only when Aslan does it do the scales disappear forever. "The very first tear he made was so deep that I thought it had gone right into my heart." Aslan then throws Eustace into the water, and he turns into a boy again. Aslan then dresses him "in new clothes." I see it as relating to how we can try all we want to make ourselves "unbeastly," but we never can change ourselves completely. Only when God reaches into our hearts, rips away all the "beastliness," washes us (a metaphor common in baptism), and dresses us in new clothes do we become the people we were meant to be. "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; Old things have passed away, behold, all things have become new." (2 Cor 5:17). That's how I see it anyway. I am NOT saying a person MUST see it that way. "Much of what we take away we brought ourselves," I like to say. I don't think Lewis was thinking, "Hey...if I make this like Christianity it will make people into Christians." Lewis builds mythological elements into his books that parallel Christian theology not out of any desire to proselytize, but because he believed they were strong story arcs rooted in what he saw as the "true myth"--Christianity. That's my tuppence worth, anyway.
July 18, 2005, 4:24 p.m. CST
by Winky Man
OK, I can see that. Just never occurred to me. Thanks for the response, I can't quarrel with anything. Anybody else feel free to point out anything else in any of the other books (specifically Silver Chair) that is on the obscure side and I will be edumacted. Oh, you can leave out Magician's Nephew as well as first and last. I think I got those.
July 18, 2005, 5 p.m. CST
I mean with Father Time waking up and stars falling from the skies, it's pretty amazing but then Lewis goes and ruins by going overboard with the whole hardocre christianity. Susan doesnt go to heaven because she wears make up and likes boys!!!! WTF?!?! That's awful. It's better that all the kids died and went to heaven instead of living there lives?!?!? Theres a pretty fucked up value system going on.
July 18, 2005, 5:46 p.m. CST
I don't think Susan's absence at the end has anything to do with makeup and boys...the idea is that she grew to value her earthly life above the existence Aslan offered her. Which, in a sense, addresses the other issue about the kids dying and not living out their lives. That is not a fucked-up value system at all. Lewis makes a big point of showing that our earthly existence is only a shadow of our "real" existence. What's so bad about dying if you're heading to a better place? Earth is only preferable to heaven if you don't believe in heaven. So according to Lewis' value system, it's perfectly consistent. And I think it's a great message for kids, because it points to a hope that conquers death, something much needed in today's world.
July 18, 2005, 6:04 p.m. CST
by I Dunno
Everyone's a Christ figure. Anakin Skywalker is Christ. Neo is Christ. Fucking Waldo of "Where's Waldo?" fame is Christ. If you want your vacuous story to gain the praiseworthy monniker of Biblical allegory, have your character die and resurrect, that's the ticket.
July 18, 2005, 6:29 p.m. CST
You have it backwards. Lewis said you begin with the myth of the dying/resurrected God. It's a common myth that occurs everywhere. Then, according to Lewis, you have Christ as the "true myth"--the story is the same, only this time it really happened. Nobody is saying that all these are intentional Christ-figures, only that they belong to the same category of myth. What's so wrong about that?
July 18, 2005, 6:44 p.m. CST
by Brit Pop
Speaking of Christ allegory's... please never let anyone make a remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still... WOTW was bad enough, TDTESS should not be touched, I can just see God... sorry, Gort doing bullet-time backflips and hammer-throwing tanks off into the distance. Some things should be kept regal, and not bastardised for the 21st century.
July 18, 2005, 8:23 p.m. CST
...one of those bull/ox heads for my livingroom. Oh, I might put it on and scare kids with it, who knows. I figure it's just something good to have around.
July 18, 2005, 9:17 p.m. CST
Wow, great comments, Jack would be pleased.
July 18, 2005, 9:21 p.m. CST
zacdilone, you ever read A Severe Mercy by Sheldon Vanauken? It is the tale of two young lovers and their friendship with CS Lewis. Could be as good as Shadowlands if it was ever adapted to film.
July 18, 2005, 9:26 p.m. CST
August 5th is going to be sweeeeet!
July 18, 2005, 9:28 p.m. CST
by the toad
....but why just settle for the head? go for the whole minotaur, complete with battle axe and nose ring...now THAT would be a good reason to start entertaining!
July 18, 2005, 9:29 p.m. CST
Now I loved the Narnia books as a kid, and even then I was perfectly aware of the Christian allegory and it didn't bother me then, and it doesn't really bother me now as long as we take into account what Lewis was doing and what role Christianity played in his life. Remember he converted - before that he was a hardcore agnostic, and his buddy Tolkien kept on trying to point out the error of his ways. But the Last Battle really bothered me - then and now. This is one of my main problems with Christianity - the idea of heaven and earth. I think it's a TERRIBLE thing to teach kids that this life doesn't matter or that this is just a dress rehearsal for heaven. I really think this whole philosophy started (and especially emphasized in the medieval era) as a way to keep the poor and disenfranchised happily powerless and the Church sticking to its luxury. Withstand all the suffering that we're turning a blind eye to while we fill our coffers because you'll be rewarded in heaven! Or we don't need to care about fucking up the planet because it's not really important as long as we have the next life. These are the dangers of a transcendent faith when God is so far removed from the everyday and the world around us that people think it's ok to eschew everything that's manifest in exchange for some eternal reward. Taken to ean extreme, this makes us hate our bodies and our physical selves, this allows us to destroy the environment, and much more. Come to think of it, Christianity isn't alone in this as Islamic extremists look for heavenly reward through violence. Damn, sorry to bring the "T" word into yet another talkback. But there you have it. I'm really looking forward to this movie - and Aslan as a Christ figure IS sad to be going to his death because he is resigned to his fate and is also sad for the evil that makes his death necessary.
July 18, 2005, 10:19 p.m. CST
What ridiculous nonsense. Thank God we came to our senses and worship a carpenter that died two thousand years ago.
July 18, 2005, 10:28 p.m. CST
...the literature of the past is that these authors were living in an overwhelmingly Christian society- even 70-80 years ago in England and America. Many people, even in the time of the youth of Tolkien and Lewis- still lost portions of their newborns, many mothers died in childbirth, a Flu pandemic in WWI obliterated more lives than all the wars of the last two centuries combined. People were much more associated with horror and death and some, like Tolkien, had been 'Eye Deep in Hell' in the trenches. If these authors were born 50 years later in their respective societies and were to write the Lord of the Rings or even the obviously Christian Narnia books- forget about it. Modern they are not.
July 18, 2005, 11:01 p.m. CST
by Some Dude
You see, The Chronicles of Narnia have a plot that makes sense and are correctly labelled as fiction. The bible fails on both counts. Score one for the allegory.
July 18, 2005, 11:12 p.m. CST
Just to clarify some of the issues surrounding your post about Church history... 1. The Church "starting" the idea of a detachment from earthly things for the purposes of retaining her own luxury - Considering this hyperspiritual minimalist concept can be found both in Christ's own words and the Pauline epistles, I really don't see how you can expect anybody to take your suggestion seriously. The "Church" at the time was a scattered collection of average joes meeting in back alleys and cellars to pray, little more than one step ahead of the civil authority (who wanted them arrested) and all fiercely dedicated to both the spirit and letter of the Word. Christ is very specific on this issue; if you can find some example of him encouraging Christians to stockpile riches, I'd love to see them. Heck, the Gnostic materials come from exactly this minimalist tradition, although they take the idea a step too far, declaring everything material to be corrupt. No true Christian would hold such a view. Their mandate is to go into the world to do good for everyone who needs it. 2. The notion of the medieval-era Church using this concept as a means to maintain luxury - This is closer to being on-base, but it's still a relentlessly negative view of the matter. Yes, there was corruption - and still is, of course - but the enforcement of the Church's authority was a vital aspect of her existence. In a world wherein everybody lives about three meals away from a state of brutal anarchy, it is absolutely crucial that social hierarchy remains undisturbed. So long as everybody's alive and safe at the end of the day, it is not wise to tamper with the system. Thankfully, we don't have to think like that today; we have leisure and security. We're probably a few weeks ahead of the sort of mayhem the Church spent centuries preventing. 3. The dangers of a "transcendant philosophy" - These are very real, but should not be ascribed to any sort of real Christianity. The Gnostic ideology - so lately vaunted by more liberal theologians - has this in spades, however. Anyway, everything else you said seems fine. It is wise to remember, however, that the "problems" with religion - including Islam - are the result of people following their religion only selectively. I am not a Muslim, and I have met very few Muslims that I would call "good people," and have heard of even fewer in the media. At the same time, however, Islam thrills me with its elegance and general decency. Christianity exudes the confidence and grace of one who has brought all of the paradoxes of man into a fine and unshakeable balance. And yet people like Benny Hinn and Fred Phelps get all the attention. Religion is beautiful. People are ugly. Religion tries to magnify all of the good qualities of man and put them to good use; moreover, it gives men a reason why this should be so. People, however, are generally pretty dumb. At least, that's the impression one could get by reading the general AiCN talkback. ;)
July 18, 2005, 11:52 p.m. CST
by Some Dude
And that is why something as silly as religion has lasted as long as it has (in its infinitely similar, yet supposedly different varieties), despite the superior creations of law, science and literature, which have done more good for man than any mystical mumbo-jumbo ever has.
July 19, 2005, 12:21 a.m. CST
Like it or not, Jesus was an historical figure. If you want to argue that point, then your understanding of the word "reality" needs work. And just because some people believe a book's plot makes sense and other people don't is no reason to claim a "score." (Silmarillion, anyone?) I believe the Bible's plot makes sense, so score one for "theology," I guess. As for the message being a good one for kids, I was speaking of the need for hope, which is present in the last Narnia book. But I sure wouldn't attempt to teach theology from it.
July 19, 2005, 12:24 a.m. CST
How many hungry mouths have they fed? How many homes have they built? How many dying children have they held in their arms, giving water to their dry mouths? How many relationships have they mended? How many outcasts have they embraced? Given the choice between holding up Mother Teresa, Shakespeare, Voltaire, or Einstein...I'd take Mother Teresa anyday.
July 19, 2005, 1:21 a.m. CST
1. Your first statement is pretty much useless, in a logical sense. Calling religion "silly" and claiming only idiots support it is, apart from being pretty much retarded, somewhat akin to begging the question. It also has a brief whiff of non-sequitur to it, but let's not mince words here. 2. Your "religions are all the same" polemic is similarly useless. It's the sort of alleged truism that sophists like to toss about without any sort of regard for the fact that it's simply false. 3. Law, science and literature are all very well and good, but let's look at where they come from. All law can be traced back to a cultural respect for the divine, whatever form that divinity may take. Science is not something that man has somehow managed to "create;" it's the only reasonable way to examine a world that is assumed to be rational and make decisions accordingly. The assumption that the world is rational is owed to a respect for the divine. I'm not saying that this is what scientists base their science on /now/, of course, although many still do; rather, that is the historical root of a scientific view. As to literature, you're going to have to be more specific. 4. The power of "mystical mumbo-jumbo," as you call it, is utterly lost on the willfully obtuse. Perhaps you may wish to meditate upon this. When you're ready to overcome your religious bigotry, feel free to come home.
July 19, 2005, 1:23 a.m. CST
by Some Dude
...for "god" to help those people. Science does more for the starving and dehydrated than religion. Same for relationships and outcasts. Oh, and Mother Theresa is a sham. She wasn't interested in saving people, only souls. Look it up.
July 19, 2005, 1:27 a.m. CST
by Some Dude
los- Science is a product of man. It is a method by which man can observe and make predictions about the world. It is not obvious and thus goes against all of religion which prefers to blame things on gods and devils. -------------zacdilone- A Jesus or some Jesuses may have been eral people, that does not mean they had magical powers or that god is real.
July 19, 2005, 1:48 a.m. CST
"Science does more for the starving and dehydrated than religion. Same for relationships and outcasts." I must politely ask you to support these statements. Particularly the second sentence. "Science is a product of man." No, it is not. "Science" is not a "product" of anything. It's just logic, used both consciously and subconsciously. "It is not obvious and thus goes against all of religion which prefers to blame things on gods and devils." First, how is it "not obvious?" Second, your little rant about blaming things on gods and devils is a real tear-jerker, but you may wish to research this matter more thoroughly. The Big Three (Judaism/Christianity/Islam) declare and accept the natural laws of the world, how they operate, and their potential results. Numinous polytheisms, however (say Paganism, for example) most definitely blame things on spirits both benevolent and malevolent. Finally, with regards to your comment to zac, you should look into C.S. Lewis' great trilemma. Appropriate enough, of course, considering the talkback we're in.
July 19, 2005, 4:55 a.m. CST
The Horse and His Boy does feature the Calormen who are culturally very Arabic and they are the villains, however the main heroine in the book is Aravis who is a darked skinned Calormen. As for the "darkies" term, it is only used in the last book by some villaineous dwarfs who also insult Aslan and the King of Narnia. So Lewis is "racist" for having unpleasant characters use offensive language, in Calormen they call Archenlanders white barbarians, is that racist?
July 19, 2005, 10:08 a.m. CST
FYI "Thou shalt not kill" is a bad translation. The correct interpretation of the Hebrew would be "Thou shalt not murder," in the sense of "Don't kill without justification." Now granted, that still doesn't excuse the hundreds of thousands of people who were murdered in the name of religion, but I think it points out that God hates it just as much as we do. It's important to note, though, that the command does not rule out any sort of putting to death, which is a common misinterpretation. But you're right in pointing out the hyprocrisy of those who would have no problem with unjustified murder ("let's bomb that there abortion clinic!") but rail out against homosexuality. In fact, I'll give you an even more disturbing example--how about all those Christians in the world who are greedy, market-driven gluttons? The Bible has a lot to say about gluttony and how much God hates it, but there they are consuming in mass quantities all the while saying that homosexuals are going to destroy society as we know it. I think gluttony is a far more disturbing problem. As for the "darkies" comment, I wasn't saying Lewis was a racist, only that I don't think the term can appear in any form spoken by anyone these days--it's just too much.
July 19, 2005, 10:14 a.m. CST
There's a flood. The waters are rising. A police officer comes by to warn our faithful hero, who answers, "I have faith in God." Then a boat comes by, and our faithful hero answers the same thing. Next a helicopter, and again our hero answers: "No, thanks, I have faith in God." Finally our hero drowns and appears before God. "I had faith -- why didn't you save me?!" God says, "I sent you a police officer. I sent you a boat. I sent you a helicopter. What more do you want?!!? I would argue that those who claim God's nonexistence on the basis of his noninvolvement totally misunderstand how he desires to be involved in the world. God is involved in the millions of people building homes through Habitat for Humanity. God is involved in the outpouring of food and medical supplies to the third world. God is involved in the lives of people, yes even Mother Teresa, who reach out to the poor in his name. You may want God to prove his existence by getting directly, supernaturally involved, but remember: "I refuse to prove that I exist, says God, for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing." (Thank you, Douglas. You are missed.)
July 19, 2005, 10:17 a.m. CST
Science gives people the actual ability to live, so they can then choose to follow Religion instead, and devalue their actual lives in favor of a possible afterlife reward. Typical... people neglect the true wonder in their lives and instead manufacture their own out of fictions from the past. Both science and Rock n'Roll have saved more people than have any monotheistic oriental theologies. Oh, and Christ was really about losing your 'ego', self sacrifice, and loving others... so was Buddha, Lao Tzu, and others. It's the Zoroastrian/Mosaic/Mohammedan complex of bullshit Light vs. Dark, Great Battle, Big Daddy vs. Evil, that we have to get rid of in order to see the really valuable message in any spiritual teaching. Oh, and the film's Aslan has a bigger nose than real lions do. A subtle racial comment?!?
July 19, 2005, 12:05 p.m. CST
You really need to qualify your use of the term Paganism. That's such a broad category as to be almost useless in discussions like this. It certainly doesn't sound like you're talking about certain polytheistic (some might call them mesopagan) cultures (Native American or Hindu, both also vast categories) as well as neopagan practices that exist today that definitely have a sense of personal responsibility and don't just indiscriminately blame things on "spirits." Starhawk, a feminist Wiccan, uses Weber's categories of immanence/transcendence to make just this point about personal responsibility in the face of an immanent concept of deity. I don't agree with her on all points, but she makes an intriguing suggestion. Also, I totally agree with you about early Christianity, which was an underground, marginalized and oppressed cult. I was talking about "Christianity," which became the Power, just like the Roman Empire had before it. Which is why the Church and the Roman Empire were so similar - similar hierarchical power structures and concentration of wealth. Contrast this with the less centralized model of the Irish church, who were doing something very different initially, because they were so far away from Rome. So many interesting distinctions - it's good to see that someone out there on this site actually as an idea of Christianity as more than just this monolithic, ahistorical force of nature. And yes, when I talk about Christianity here, I'm talking about the Church and not the theology per se, though in my previous post, I was making a point about how Church leaders pushed an agenda forward that was grounded in the theology, emphasizing the fire and brimstone and eternal reward parts of the faith over the "love thy neighbor" aspects. Unfortunately, I can't continue this discussion since I'll be out of computer range for a few weeks. Sorry if I made a mess and left!
July 19, 2005, 1:58 p.m. CST
Asaln appears as a Lamb at the end of VOYAGE OF THE DAWN TREADER. See http://www.angelfire.com/wv/bonktea/allegory.html for more.
July 19, 2005, 4:25 p.m. CST
by Mark Twain
There was a time when it was The Church that was at the forefront of scientific persuit. The feeling was that knowledge could only bring us to a closer understanding of God. It was The Church that preserved scientific knowledge through the Dark Ages. Prior to the split happening, it was BECAUSE of the presence of religion that science was able to advance. There are Christians out there who believe in both science and evolution, as an example. I happen to enjoy the allegory in Lewis' work, not enjoy the work in spite of it. Oh, and absolutely correct on the whole "murder" vs. "kill" post. Killing is justified under certain circumstances in Jewish Old Testament Law. Wanton killing for no good or petty reasons on the other hand, not so much. Excited to see what they do with this movie and hopefully series. As to symbolism in the Silver Chair, well, you got a big serpent, what more do you want?
July 19, 2005, 6:02 p.m. CST
by Childe Roland
Anchorite, it amazes me how you'll pop into a talkback like this and try to hold yourself up as oh-so-enlightened by throwing out a few vague, ultimately irrelevant statements. How, exactly, does one prove the non-existence of something (I'm envisioning three monkeys with their hands covering their sensory organs)? And surely you don't believe that simply because something doesn't refute another thing that same something automatically supports or somehow validates that other thing (I thought you were going to do some logic homework)? Sure, many of the laws that various cultures have adopted and codified have moral implications that are echoed in myriad religious doctrines. And many of those moral implications are similar, even in the religions of vastly different cultures (for example, Islam and Christianity are not all that different at their most fundamental levels). But this thematic continuity speaks more to something many find even more difficult to believe in than the concept of a conscious, benevolent creator with a divine plan: common sense. Imagine you're one of those first tool-using, problem solving monkeys whose mate convinced him that staying put and planting crops was better for the viability of the offspring and survivability of your genetic material into the next generation (which, I don't care who you are or what you believe, is what every strand of DNA in your body is screaming at you to do). The idea caught on because, even then, most people knew a better deal when they saw it. So you say to yourself: "Gee... we have this burgeoning little society here that seems to be benefitting all of its members. How do we protect it, both from outside forces with conflicting ideologies and from our own people's inherent tendancy to fuck things up? Well, we should make some rules... like no taking other people's shit and no killing each other. Wait... what if we really want to kill someone? Okay... no killing without REALLY good reason... we'll kind of have to make up and reinterpret some of these rules as we go along." Laws aren't more valuable than religion (or vice versa), but they do tend to be less dogmatic. Sometimes this can be a good thing, as it allows for the changing nature of the universe to affect man's perception of his reality and gives him the freedom to adapt his society's rules for the survival of its members. Sometimes the mutable nature of laws is not such a good thing, as you can't always trust the people who make them to be looking out for the best interests of their society as a whole rather than their own. But, at their root, law and religion are really just control devices put in place by man to help control his own deep seated desire to take what he wants for himself when he wants it and kill anyone who gets in his way. Of course, as we've also seen, both laws and religion can be used to rationalize and justify those same inherent desires if said desires happen to belong to people in positions that allow them to interpret the laws or spin the religion. So what was your point, again? That religion is more valuable than law? Or science (which tends to work for you every time you take a flight of stairs or an elevator, let alone hop into a car or an airplane, whether you value it or not)? Or literature (which, while not as intrinsic to the way of life most Americans lead today as science, law or even religion, has certainly done its part to support all three of those institutions and to improve the quality of life for billions)? Or were you just trying to sound smart and superior? If you truly want us all to be so impressed by your intelligence and insight, you really ought to be able to at least try and make a point without immediately insulting everyone who disagrees with you.
July 19, 2005, 6:15 p.m. CST
by Mark Twain
I shudder to think that your post was serious. Bad science led to a concept of racial superiority that was enprecedented in its slaughter. By the way, the answer to the first is No One. If you really need a history lesson and don't have time to do the research on how Christianity and Science once went hand in hand, let me know and I'll give you the cliff notes. For someone who claims to worship at the altar of science, it seems to me you're opposed to learning and already have some bizare unchangeable notions that fly in the face of the discovery that is the joy of science.
July 19, 2005, 6:40 p.m. CST
by Prophet Jeremiah
Love to see your enlightened comments though. It's sad when idiocy manifests itself behind the cloak of science or religion or anything else used to cover ignorance. But trying to answer an ass clown like that with reason won't work, since his premise is not based on reason. I appreciate you still shining that light into the darkness though.
July 19, 2005, 10:44 p.m. CST
by Childe Roland
...there, are you Twain? I mean, yeah, Hitler's scientists killed many in the name of science. But how many people throughout history have Christians killed in the name of Jesus? Just sayin', if you want to talk apples to apples, religion doesn't always come out so shiny and clean.
July 19, 2005, 10:55 p.m. CST
Is that for many centuries, "Christian" indicated anyone who was born into the "civilized" west. It was a "state religion" which claimed to kill for Jesus, but was really killing to consolidate political power. No follower of Jesus would agree with that kind of barbaric behavior. It's similar to the terrorists who claim to kill in the name of Islam...in the same way that faithful Muslims cringe everytime that's mentioned, faithful Christians cringe when someone claims to kill in the name of Jesus. Actually, cringe is the wrong word. Weep is more like it.
July 19, 2005, 11:20 p.m. CST
by Mark Twain
I was responding to one specific post by angry guttural utterance. I would be among the first to argue that much ill has been done in the name of religion. Zacdilone said it well, a true christian weeps at killing done in the name of Jesus. The intent of my post was place things in a context; I grow weary of the inanities expressed by extremists in any camp. To suggest that valuing science over religion or vice versa leaves no room for the other is a false choice. Both science and religion have been used for good and ill. It's easy to blame the media for the misunderstanding of Christianity, but in the age of the internet, I blame the drone who is too lazy to learn anything but what is spoon fed through the tube. And if you are on these boards, you obviously have access to a computer so ignorance becomes difficult to justify. I could also point out that I am personally weary of a Hitler comparison being trotted out where it doesn't apply, but that post was begging for it by suggesting no murders had ever been committed in the name of science and that somehow Christianity was an ideology predicated on murder. "Crazy Christian Extremist Blows Up Abortion Clinic" sells more newspapers than "Church Builds Hospital," but which event do you think happens far more frequently? Your posts are thought out, well articulated and show thought at work. Yours wasn't the one I was jumping on. I might debate a post like yours, but only with respect for a mutual exchange of ideas. By the way, I'll be happy to jump down the throat of any Fundamentalist of any stripe as well who would post that science has done nothing but bring harm to the world.
July 19, 2005, 11:50 p.m. CST
If it weren't for Irish monks in the Dark Ages, most of the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans would have been forever lost. The link between religion and science is very complicated, so learn a bit more before you decide what you think is 'Truth'.
July 20, 2005, 3:26 a.m. CST
"I don't know how many people hitler killed with his own bare hands, but his FOLLOWERS killed alot, and so did jesus'."..........Well, there is a big, big difference here and I know you know it already but Hitler directed that his followers kill people while Christ preached turning the other cheek. What people did in Christ's name must go on the head's of the people. What people did because Hitler directed it goes at least partially on the head of Adolf. Also, for science's sake A LOT is two words............Further, I am sad to hear about your bad experience with religion but I refute that most religious folks are willing to or want to kill the nearest homo. I know many, many, many religious people, some not so educated or socially skilled but I don't know ANY that have killed a 'queer' or condoe it in ANY way. They do other 'bad' things to be sure......Lastly, it is my belief that your experience with religion, and being branded a bastard or being born "with that stain" doesn't represent the feelings of the religious people I know at all. I am a technical bastard as well but never, ever has it been a "stain" or was I made to feel lightning is on its way. Sorry you met those folks.
July 20, 2005, 11:30 a.m. CST
Just a couple of thoughts: "That means i'm a bastard. not a cool thing to hear as a kid, and it doesnt exactly welcome you into the church." How I wish what you say wasn't true, but I have a sister-in-law who bore a child out of wedlock in similar circumstances, and when she attempted to join a church afterwards she was promptly shunned. Jesus must really get pissed at the way those who claim to follow him sometimes act. "You don't seem to get that ALOT of religious followers (as in most of the population) arent as thoughtful or studied as you are. they just get all tough and say "i'm gonna kill that there homo cause jesus tells me to!" they're idiots. you're not." You've captured the average Bible-belt Baptist well, but I think you'd be surprised how many Christians don't fall into that mold. Unfortunately, they get all the press and media coverage. Good discussion here...and I, too think Narnia looks way cool.
July 20, 2005, 1:28 p.m. CST
by Childe Roland
I was just making sure you knew you weren't structuring a completely balanced parallel there, since your first question asked about Jesus killing directly and your second about those killing in the name of something. You obviously lopsided it for effect and to illustrate a point, but I wanted to make sure no one misinterpreted it as your idea of a balanced comparison. Peace.
July 20, 2005, 3:27 p.m. CST
by Mark Twain
And sorry if I missed an "r" or two. I regret your experiences inside a church. Unfortunately, I won't deny that that sort of attitude exists far too often. It is NOT one that I share, nor I suspect those Christians that would choose to post on a Narnia talkback. Jesus used some of his harshest rhetoric against the religious figures of his time. That attitude you hate was also despised by the founder of Christianity as well. As to the whole homosexuality issue that many incorrectly assume the position all Christians take, Jesus said not one word (Paul yes, but that's a whole other discussion). I happen to hold a very different view than the one I am assumed to have if I mention Christianity in a favorable light. You've gone to pains to point out that you are not painting all Christians with a broad brush, so I accept that. I can't undue what many so called christians have done to color your judgements, but know this, I am appalled by the very idea of making anyone feel unwelcome or ashamed due to circumstances of their birth. I think Aslan would agree. I gotta say though, I do find these types of exchanges far healthier than the madness in the Superman Talkback. Peace right back atcha Honey Childe. And I have high hopes for this film so far based on what information we're getting.